ΕΠ ‘Ss | oe : τὸν i τς Aye πὸ 
L650 geet _ Boek University ot Chicago e 3 ee Fiz 
| ~ Tiina 


~ QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE 
EPISTLES AND THEIR TRANSLATION 
IN THE REVISED VERSION 


A DISSERTATION 


SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY 
OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE 
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


DEPARTMENT OF NEW TESTAMENT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 


BY 
ARTHUR WAKEFIELD SLATEN 


Historical and Linguistic Studies, Second Series, Vol. IV, Part I 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 
1918 


EXCHANGE 


: 


ΤᾺ 
\ ὯᾺ 


Digitized by the Internet Archive - 
in 2007 with funding from | 
Microsoft Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/qualitativenou nsOOslatrich 


The University of Chicago 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE 
EPISTLES AND THEIR TRANSLATION 
IN THE REVISED VERSION 


A DISSERTATION 


SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY 
OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE 
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


DEPARTMENT OF NEW TESTAMENT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 


: ΒΥ 
ARTHUR WAKEFIELD SLATEN 


Historical and Linguistic Studies, Second Series, Vol. IV, Part I 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 
1918 


CopyRIGHT 1918 By 
Tue UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


All Rights Reserved 


Published July 1918 


The Bible Text in this volume is taken from the American 
Standard Edition of the Revised Bible (copyright t1o90r by 
Thomas Nelson & Sons), and is used by permission. 


The Greek quotations in this volume are taken trom The 
New Testament in the Original Greek, edited by Brooke Foss 
Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, published by The 
Macmillan Company, and are used by permission of the pub- 
lishers. 


Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 


PREFACE 


The qualitative use of nouns is a subject not generally familiar, 
but one which, in the interests of accurate exegesis, students of the Greek 
New Testament cannot rightly ignore. Investigation indicates that it 
has been largely overlooked by both grammarians and commentators. 
It is hoped that the present treatment, confined necessarily to a limited 
field, may both serve to call attention to an important and neglected 
topic and lead to the application of the principles therein set forth by 
workers not only in other parts of the New Testament but also in the 
wider field of general Greek literature. ; 

A list of the nouns used qualitatively in the Pauline Epistles is pre- 
sented, showing about nine hundred nouns to be so used. Of these, fifteen 
have been selected for detailed study, the findings in each case being 
shown in the form of a statistical and comparative statement of usage, 
an exhibit of the usage in prepositional phrases, a discussion of the quali- 
tative usage other than in prepositional phrases, and a consideration of 
the renderings of the Revised Version. The nouns thus studied are 
νόμος, ἁμαρτία, πίστις, δικαιοσύνη, ἐλπίς, εὐαγγέλιον, θέλημα, ἅγιος, ἀδελφός, 
κλητός, ἀπόστολος, ἐπίσκοπος, σωτήρ, κύριος, and θεός. 

To Professor Ernest DeWitt Burton, Head of the Department of 
New Testament and Early Christian Literature in the University of 
Chicago, grateful acknowledgment is made both for the original impetus 
toward the investigation and for continued encouragement and helpful 


suggestion and criticism. εἰ 
ARTHUR WAKEFIELD SLATEN 


ὍΣΣ 


Rie 
ΤᾺΣ 
ay 


CONTENTS 


ΠΝ ἀρ vate ig Yh ἐφ πα te ws itl Ma 8 thc Oe I 
1. Justification of the Present Study: . 9. 2. ἘΑ ἐολ ς ατα I 

2. Translational Possibilities 4 
A. Variety of Possible Readings . Te 4 

B. Comparison of Greek and English Usage . . . . . 4 

C. Varieties of Error in Translation 5 

3. Scope of the Present Investigation 6 


4. The Determinative Principle in the Identification of Qualitative 


ee te emt Dany re aa gies ati ne hd RAP ALA RRR TLR EMR aes eK « 

ἘΠ MOIR τὺ σον, νἀ πὴ. με ra eal ni Jey τ μι mala RO 

II. List OF THE QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES . . 12 

ΠῚ. DETAILED STUDY OF SELECTED QUALITATIVE NOUNS ara sr  F 
Nopos, ‘35; ‘Apapria, 40; Πίστις 44; Δικαιοσύνη, 47; ἜἘλπίς, 49; 
Εὐαγγέλιον, 51; Θέλημα, 52; Ἅγιος, 54; ᾿Αδελφός, 55; Κλητός, 57; 
᾿Απόστολος, 58; Ἐπίσκοπος, 59; Σωτήρ 60; Κύριος, 62; Θεός, 64 

IV. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY. . ...... 69 


Vii 


(afd Γ 
τ PU a co 

Ah si aay aleve gi 7) 3 
ἡ Rae πο ἮΝ 


δὰ 
re αι εν ἀν, 


i ἔς" if 
ΨΥ 


fhe 


I. PROLEGOMENA 


1. JUSTIFICATION OF THE PRESENT STUDY 


On page 23 of his Notes on New Testament Grammar (Chicago, 1904), 
under the heading ‘‘Syntax of the Article,” Professor Ernest D. Burton 
says: 

“4) The article is in general either (1) Restrictive (demonstrative) 
or (2) Generic. 

“‘b) Nouns without the article are either (1) Indefinite or (2) Quali- 
tative (adjectival).” 

Inasmuch as the foregoing classification of anarthrous nouns intro- 
duces a distinction recognized, so far as known, by no previous writer 
upon the subject, it is interesting to find Professor James Hope Moulton 
saying on page 83 of the Prolegomena,’ “For exegesis there are few of 
the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention than 
this omission of the article when the writer would lay stress on the 
quality or character of the object. Even the Revised Version misses 
this badly sometimes, as in John 6:68.” 

These two remarks furnish the suggestion for such an investigation as 
the one here attempted, the first outlining the principles upon which it 
should proceed, the second providing it with an adequate practical 
object. In the course of the investigation, however, attention has 
necessarily been given to the classification of all nouns in the Pauline 
Epistles as a prerequisite to the closer study of the special selected group 
of nouns used qualitatively. In each case the rendering of the Revised 
Version has been observed and recorded. That such an intensive study 
of the usage of qualitative nouns is not a work of supererogation is wit- 
nessed by the fact that none of the New Testament grammars treats it 
in any detail. 

James Hope Moulton, in the work above referred to, page 82, 
has a few lines on the topic “Qualitative Force in Anarthrous Nouns,’ 
merely remarking that “‘the lists of words which specially affect the 
_dropped article will, of course, need careful examination for the indi- 
vidual cases. Thus, when Winer includes πατήρ in his list, and quotes 
John 1:14 arid Heb. 12:7, we must feel that in both passages the 


t A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Hope Moulton (3d ed.; Edin- 
burgh, 1908), Vol. I, Prolegomena. 


1] 1 


« 
tf 


2 “ἐς . ‘Sis @YSTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


“<< Qualitative force is very apparent—‘what son is there whom his father, 
as a father, does not chasten?’ (On the former passage see R.V. margin, 
and the note in Winer-Moulton, p. 151). He then adds the remark 
quoted at the beginning of this thesis. 

A. T. Robertson in his Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament 
([New York, 1909], p. 72) has a paragraph entitled “‘ When the Article Is 
Not Used.” He makes no mention of a qualitative use of nouns of 
which the absence of the article is an indication. In his larger work, A 
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research 
((New York, 1914], pp. 790-96), Professor Robertson discusses ‘‘ The 
Absence of the Article.” He refers to Moulton’s remark above alluded 
to and quotes as follows: ‘“‘Few of the finer points of Greek which 
need more constant attention’ than the absence of the article,’”’ omitting 
Moulton’s words about the qualitative force of such cases. On page 794 
Professor Robertson, discussing the absence of the article with abstract 
nouns, says, “No vital difference was felt between articular and anar- 
throus abstract nouns,” citing Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 259). In treating 
briefly of the qualitative force of nouns Professor Robertson says on 
the same page, ‘“‘This is best brought out in anarthrous nouns,” and 
cites a few instances. 

Friedrich Blass’s Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch 
(vierte, neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner [Gét- 
tingen, 1913], pp. 145-62), in the discussion of the article, does not 
mention the qualitative usage. 

Gildersleeve-Miller (Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demos- 
thenes, Part II [New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, 1911], p. 259) says 
that no vital difference was felt between articular and anarthrous 
abstract nouns; that prepositional phrases and other formulas may 
dispense with the article, so also proverbs, the ordinals in expressions 
of time, enumerations, and βασιλεύς, of the Persian king. 

Raphael Kiihner (A usfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache 
[Hannover und Leipzig, 1898], I, 598-610) discusses the omission of the 
article, listing thirteen cases, e.g., before proper names, in prepositional 
phrases, before abstract nouns, etc. He makes no mention of the 
qualitative usage, nor does he discover any principle governing the 
omission of the article, but merely lists various cases in which the article, 
is omitted. 

Alexander Buttmann (A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, 
English translation by J. H. Thayer [Andover, 1891]) makes no mention 
of the qualitative usage. 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 3 


Winer-Thayer (A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament 
[Andover, 1874]) makes no mention of the qualitative usage of nouns." 

Thomas Sheldon Green (A Treatise on the Grammar of the New Testa- 
ment [London, 1842], pp. 182-83), discussing the use of the article, 
recognizes the qualitative turn given in certain cases by the omission of 
the article. His words are as follows: 


The above-mentioned omissions of the article before nouns where its 
presence is legitimate are only permissive; it remains to notice one that is 
designed. 

It has already been remarked in the last section that the presence of the 
article is an impediment to the inherent significance of the word to which it is 
prefixed having a prominence or point in the sentence. Accordingly the 
instances which will now be brought forward are those of words to which 
the article might rightly be prefixed, but where it is withheld for this particular 
reason. 

Heb. 1:1: ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν vid. 

The absence of the article may be referred to a cause just mentioned, 
namely, the preposition, but it is more probably intentional. Had the writer 
said ἐν τῷ υἱῷ the words would merely have called to mind the person already 
familiarly known under the title of the Son of God, without calling attention 
to the inherent meaning of the title; but his special concern is with his nature 
and attributes, namely, a design of impressing upon his readers his divine 
sonship, and, which is the leading idea of the epistle, his immeasurable supe- 
riority in virtue of it to all preceding persons having a divine commission. It 
may sound strange, but the rendering should probably be “‘by a Son” or 
“by one who is his Son,” implying that God no longer addressed them by a 
prophet, a mere οἰκέτης, but by one who had the nature and dignity of a son. 
There is the same contrast in 7: 28. 


Summary.—In their treatment of the article grammarians have 
been forced to consider its frequent omission or, as Professor Robertson 
prefers to say, ‘‘absence.”” They have noted its non-appearance in 
various instances and have listed these. Among the cases in which the 
article may be omitted Green, in 1842, mentions the intentional omission 
of the article in order that the inherent signification of the noun may 
without impediment emerge. This view, which is another name for the 
qualitative usage, he puts forward with diffidence and caution. The 


* Note Winer’s claim in Stuart and Robinson’s translation of his work entitled 
A Greek Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Andover, 1825), p. 55, that the insertion 
or omission of the article is a mark of individual style, and his agreement with 
Gersdorf (1816) that the four evangelists always write ὁ χριστός, but Paul and 
Peter usually χριστός, “as this appellation had in their time become a proper name.’ 


3 


4 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


German grammars do not recognize the qualitative usage. The English 
and American works of Moulton and Robertson recognize that anar- 
throus nouns may express a qualitative idea, but offer no thoroughgoing 
doctrine of the article which sets forth a definite principle governing its 
presence or absence. This is apparently for the first time attempted in 
Professor Burton’s Notes on New Testament Grammar, referred to on 
page 1 of this thesis." 


2. TRANSLATIONAL POSSIBILITIES 
A. VARIETY OF POSSIBLE READINGS 


Considered purely as a matter of linguistic possibility and without 
regard to the correctness or incorrectness of the translation, it is obvious 
that in the translation of the New Testament, as of any other Greek 
document, into English there are the following six possibilities of render- 
ing, viz., a Greek noun with the definite article may be rendered by: 
(1) an English noun with the definite article, (2) an English noun with the 
indefinite article, (3) an anarthrous English noun. An anarthrous 
Greek noun may be rendered by: (1) an anarthrous English noun, 
(2) an English noun with the indefinite article, (3) an English noun 
with the definite article. Examination shows that each of these render- 
ings does actually occur, though naturally with varying frequency. For 
example, the rendering of a Greek noun with the definite article by an 
English noun with the indefinite article is very rare, while the rendering 
of an anarthrous Greek noun by an English noun with the definite 
article is also relatively infrequent. 


B. COMPARISON OF GREEK AND ENGLISH USAGE 


The observation of such phenomena is, however, but the necessary 
preliminary to the real task of comparison and criticism. It would be 
remarkable if the genius of two languages should so perfectly agree that 
in every case the articular usage of the one could be represented by 
an exactly identical idiom in the other. In the case of Greek and 
English such a mechanical reproduction is manifestly impossible. 
While in general the usage of the article in the two languages is similar 
and the classification quoted in the beginning obtains in both, there 
are certain constructions with the definite article in Greek which cannot 


t The school grammars of Goodwin and of Hadley and Allen make no mention of 
the qualitative usage of nouns. 


+ 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 5 


be rendered intelligibly in English by its employment.t On the other 
hand the indefiniteness of anarthrous Greek nouns in the singular can be 
expressed in English only by the prefixing of @ or an. 

It should be observed, however, that the prefixing of the indefinite 
article in English does not always result in making the noun indefinite. 
That qualitative character which is in Greek denoted by the absence of 
the article is in English frequently expressed by the employment of the 
indefinite article. In many instances English requires its presence, an 
anarthrous rendering being inadequate or awkward. Thus in the 
sentence ‘‘A man’s a man for a’ that,” though the form of the nouns is 
identical the first is indefinite, the second qualitative. On the other 
hand the prefixing of ὦ or am is not always necessary. For example, 
in the sentence ‘‘ This can never happen while God is God and man is 
man,” the second “God” and ‘‘man” are each qualitative, although both 
are anarthrous. There appears to be no rule by which one can decide 
in advance when the qualitative force will properly be expressed by a 
noun with ἃ or am and when anarthrously. It is wholly a matter of 
English Sprachgefiihl, and while to a foreigner the two forms might on 
occasion appear of equal desirability the trained English ear chooses 
infallibly between them. It is evident from these considerations that 
in the translation of the Greek New Testament into English a consider- 
able divergence from Greek usage is to be expected, and the limits 
of such divergence will be the necessities of the case. 


C. VARIETIES OF ERROR IN TRANSLATION 


Translation being itself obviously a task of interpretation, the trans- 
lator faces the double duty of discovering his author’s meaning in 
Greek and of expressing that meaning adequately in English. This 
twofold task naturally involves a corresponding twofold liability to error. 
The possibilities of error in respect to the article, when carried out to 
their fullest form, may be enumerated as follows: 

1. A translator may fail to grasp the significance of the presence or 
absence of the Greek article, but express that significance properly in 
English. In such a case error? could not be detected. 


t Instance the infinitive with the article, nouns with the article and a following 
pronominal genitive, etc. 


2 The term ‘‘error” is used throughout to denote any inadequacy in translation,. 
any failure fully to express the thought conveyed by the presence or absence of the 
Greek article. 


5 


6 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


2. He may fail to grasp the significance of the presence or absence 
of the Greek article and may fail to express that significance properly 

in his English translation. In this case the error is detectable. 

3. He may grasp the significance of the presence or absence of the 
Greek article but fail to express that significance appropriately in English. 
In this case the error is detectable. 

4. He may grasp the significance of the presence or absence of the 
Greek article and may properly express that significance in English. 
In this case there is no error. 


3. SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION 


It is the second and the third of these possibilities that justify such an 
investigation as the one here attempted. In practice the two merge into 
one, viz., the possibility of a translator’s failing adequately to express 
in English the significance of the presence or absence of the article in 
Greek. In the present study this field of possibility is still further 
limited to the consideration of anarthrous nouns alone, and of these to 
the qualitative division only, and of these again especially to those the 
adequacy of whose translation in the Revised Version may justly be 
challenged. Having classified all Greek nouns occurring in the Pauline 
Epistles, and having appraised their English renderings in the Revised 
Version, we have limited the field first by the selection of a single type, 
secondly by selecting from that type a special variety, and thirdly by 
selecting from that variety a specific class. 


4. THE DETERMINATIVE PRINCIPLE IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF 
QUALITATIVE NOUNS 


Before entering upon a discussion of such a selection of the more 
outstanding and characteristic Pauline terms as falls within the scope of 
this thesis to examine, or before enumerating the statistics pertaining 
to the various classes and usages of nouns which the study has discovered, 
it is proper at this point to insert a statement of the principle which has 
been determinative in the identification of qualitative nouns in this 
investigation and which may guide one in ascertaining whether any given 
anarthrous Greek noun in any Greek document is or is not qualitative. 
This principle may best be precisely summarized in the form of a defini- 
tion. A qualitative noun is a noun (in Greek always anarthrous) whose 
function in the sentence is not primarily or solely to designate by assign- 
ment to a class but to describe by the attribution of quality, i.e., of the 
quality or qualities that are the marks of the class designated by the 


6 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 7 


noun. The effect is to ascribe to that which is modified the characteris- 
tics or qualities of a class and not merely to ascribe to it membership in 
that class. It is the connotive rather than the denotive sense that 
emerges. In the sentence “Frederick is a prince”’ the word “‘prince”’ is 
either designative, marking Frederick as a member of a class, a son of a 
monarch, or qualitative, describing Frederick as the possessor of the . 
superior character presumed to distinguish the son of a king. At the 
same time it is to be noted that the literal sense may obtain alongside 
the qualitative. Frederick may, for example, in fact be a prince and to 
him may be attributed the virtues that are regarded as proper to his 
station. In most instances this is precisely the design of the qualitative 
usage, viz., to direct the attention of the hearer or reader to the qualities 
or characteristics that properly belong to that which the noun designates. 
Each common noun designates any or all members of a class, the class” 
being defined by the possession of certain attributes; therefore to predi- 
cate the noun of an individual, strictly speaking, both assigns it to the | 
class and ascribes to it the attributes which distinguish the class. But 
in actual usage this strictness is not always maintained. Four cases 
may arise, viz.: i 

a) The individual may be assigned to the class without stress being 
laid upon the qualities of the class, though in fact the individual may 
possess them all. The noun is indefinite, e.g., Henry is a soldier. 

b) Because in this case there is not much stress laid upon the qualities, 
the individual may be assigned to the class, though he may not possess 
all the qualities: Henry is a soldier (that is, a member of a military 
organization, though he lacks some of the soldierly qualities). 

c) The qualities may be assigned to a member of the class without 
particular thought of the class, e.g., Henry is a soldier (i.e., has all the 
qualities of a soldier). 

d) Because membership in the class may be little thought of, the 
qualities, or rather a part of them, may be ascribed to one who is not 
strictly a member of the class, e.g., Henry is a soldier (i.e., has soldierly 
qualities, though not a member of any military organization). 

If one distinguish between external, formal qualities and internal 
qualities, in most of the cases falling under δ) it would be the internal 
qualities that would be neglected, while in d) it is the external qualities 
that are forgotten. The term “soldier” denotes strictly a man who 
belongs to a military organization and has soldierly qualities, such as 
courage, etc. But we may assign him to the class, though he possess only 
the external qualities, or we may describe him as qualitatively a soldier, 


7 


8 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


though he has only the internal qualities. In other cases the distinction 
is perhaps between the proper (i.e., strict) sense of the term and its 
tropical sense. In these cases the indefinite use arises when the indi- 
vidual possesses the qualities expressed by the term in its proper sense 
but is in thought assigned to the class without thought of the qualities; 
the qualitative use arises when emphasis is placed either upon the proper 
or the tropical qualities. The great majority of the indefinite cases 
fall under α); the great majority of the qualitative cases fall under c). 

This nuance of characteristic is usually accompanied in English by 
the prefixing of the indefinite article and is accomplished by an inflection 
of the voice. In Greek the same effect is produced by the omission of 
the article and doubtless as in English (the context making clear to the 
reader or hearer which of the two meanings was intended) was accom- 
panied by an appropriate vocal emphasis. Naturally not all instances 
are as easily recognized as that in the illustration cited, though some are 
perfectly obvious, but a careful scrutiny reveals even to an English eye 
or ear that qualitative emphasis which the omission of the article pro- 
duced for the original writer and readers. 

Strictly abstract nouns, being themselves the names of qualities, 
are essentially qualitative, and the omission of the article serves merely 
to strengthen this innate qualitative force. 

Appellatives are probably in their inception essentially qualitative, 
though they tend to become conventional titles, dropping their qualita- 
tive character. Master and Mr. in English and Herr in German exem- 
plify this fading of qualitative color. The same process is illustrated 
in the word κύριος, which in modern Greek has become merely the polite 
Mr. or sir,’ while in the New Testament κύριος and θεός are among those 
most frequently used in the qualitative sense, as a glance at the list of 
nouns used qualitatively will show. In English, appellatives, whether 
anarthrous or preceded by the definite article, may be qualitatively used. 
Instance ‘‘ Charles the Hammer,” “Old Hickory,” “‘Stonewall Jackson.” 

Proper names may also be used qualitatively, and though few 
instances occur in the New Testament they are not infrequently so used 
both in Greek and English authors. 

Gentilic nouns, which are related both to appellatives and proper 
nouns, are occasionally used qualitatively. A convincing example is the 


t A similar usage of κύριος is apparent in the New Testament (e.g., Matt. 17:15; 
18:21; 21:39; 27:63; Mark 7:28), but a return to or an emphasis upon the essential, 
qualitative character of the appellative is possible, so that the affirmation “Jesus is 
κύριος᾽" came to be, to Paul at least, the distinctively Christian confession. 


8 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 9 


use of ᾿Ιουδαῖος in Rom. 2:17, where to bring out the qualitative force 
we might read and punctuate, “‘But if thou bearest the name ‘Jew.’”’ - 

Common or concrete nouns both in English and Greek readily lend 
themselves to qualitative emphasis. Such English common nouns as 
“the pen,” “16 sword,” “the scepter,” ‘the crown,” are illustrations 
of common nouns used qualitatively. But as a rule the definite article 
occurs with nouns used qualitatively only with concrete nouns used by 
metonymy for abstract or actional nouns. Thus ‘The pen is mightier 
than the sword”’ really means “‘ Writing is more powerful than fighting.” 
It would perhaps be strictly correct to say that a concrete generic noun 
is used by metonymy for a qualitative abstract or actional noun. 

Though for the sake of brevity we may speak of nouns as qualitative, 
it is to be kept in mind that the classification is not one of nature but of 
usage. There is no class of qualitative nouns as such, as there is of 
proper, concrete, etc. Nouns of any class may be used qualitatively 
while retaining their natural classification. The peculiarity of qualita- 
tive usage is that the noun is so used as to lay emphasis upon the qualities 
or characteristics which properly belong to that which the noun repre- 
sents. This qualitative emphasis does not, however, in all cases obliter- 
ate the definite reference of the noun. When the reference is commonly 
limited to a single person or thing, for example, the definiteness of the 
noun is not dissipated by the qualitative emphasis, though to express’ 
this emphasis the noun is made anarthrous. In Rom. 1:1, for example, 
εὐαγγέλιον, though anarthrous and qualitative, is also definite, there 
being but one “‘gospel”’ present to the author’s mind, and the translation 
as will be pointed out later should run “separated unto divine good 
news,” or “‘separated unto a gospel of God,” the presence of the indefinite 
article in English not making the noun itself indefinite but expressing its 
qualitative character. Θεός also as commonly used in the New Testa- 
ment has a distinct and limited reference to the one God, and when it is 
used qualitatively it does not thereby cease to be definite. 

The recognition of the qualitative usage of nouns is of extreme 
importance in the translation and interpretation of the New Testament. 
That the significance of this usage is not generally recognized is apparent 
not only in many of the renderings of the Revised Version but even in 
critical commentaries upon the Greek text and in the standard grammars 
of New Testament Greek. While the present study of the subject 
maintains a constant critical surveillance of the renderings of the Revised 
Version as a parallel investigation, the whole is based upon the examina- 
tion of New Testament Greek usage as such, and the purpose of the 


9 


10 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


thesis is to aid in correct interpretation through the recognition on the 
part of the interpreter of this factor hitherto too much neglected, and 
not merely the negative task of pointing out imperfections in the current 
English translation. Though the nature of the study brings into special 
prominence the points at which the Revised Version’s neglect of the 
qualitative usage of nouns is most patent and its consequences most 
disastrous, the eure merit of the translation is fully conceded. See 


page 69. 
5- TRANSLATIONAL STATISTICS 


Preceding the detailed study of such individual qualitative nouns 
as it lies within the scope of the present thesis to exhibit, a statistical 
statement of the data discovered is appropriate. 

In the Pauline Epistles (Pastorals included) there occur 8,841 nouns 
and noun equivalents.‘ Classified according to their use as restrictive, 
generic, indefinite, and qualitative they yield the following figures: 
restrictive, 3,743 cases;? generic, 929; indefinite, 589; qualitative, 2,857. 

The variety of possible translations in any given case has already 
been adverted to. The findings of the present investigation are that 
nouns preceded by the definite article were translated: 

1. By an English noun preceded by the definite article in 1,702 cases. 

2. By an English noun preceded by the indefinite article in 16 cases. 

3. By an anarthrous English noun in 2,954 cases, 

Anarthrous Greek nouns were translated: 

1. By an anarthrous English noun in 2,404 cases. 

2. By an English noun preceded by the indefinite article in 397 cases. 

3. By an English noun preceded by the definite article in 645 cases. 

These renderings were distributed as follows: 

The 3,743 restrictive nouns were rendered by English nouns preceded 
by the definite article in 1,480 cases; by English nouns preceded by the 
indefinite article in 6 cases; by anarthrous English nouns in 2,257 
cases. 

The 929 generic nouns were rendered by English nouns preceded 
by the definite article in 222 cases; by English nouns preceded by 
the indefinite article in τὸ cases; by anarthrous English nouns in 
697 cases. 


1 The statement has no bearing on the extent of the Pauline vocabulary. Often 
the same noun occurs many times. 

2 Besides these there are 723 cases of proper names and ne which have 
been classified as restrictive without the article. 


10 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES ΤΙ 


The 589 indefinite nouns were rendered by anarthrous English 
nouns in 405 cases; by English nouns preceded by the indefinite article 
in 125 cases; by English nouns preceded by the definite article in 
59 cases. . 

The 2,857 qualitative nouns were rendered by anarthrous English 
nouns in 1,999 cases; by English nouns preceded by the indefinite article 
in 272 cases; by English nouns preceded by the definite article in 
586 cases. 


11 


II. LIST OF THE QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE 
PAULINE EPISTLES 


*ABBa, Rom. 8:15; 11:1; Gal. 4:6 

᾿Αβραάμ, Rom. 4:2, τό ἣ 

ἀγαθός, Rom. 7:18, 19; 8:28; 10:15; Gal. 6:6 

ἀγαθωσύνη, Rom. 15:14; Gal. 5:23; Eph. 5:9; II Thess. 1:11 

ἀγανάκτησις, II Cor. 7:11 

ἀγάπη, Rom. 14:15; I Cor. 4:21; 13:1, 2, 3, 13; 16:14; II Cor. 2:8; 
6:6; Gal. 5:6, 22; Eph. 2:43: 42373) 4:2, 15, 16; '5:15 67233 
Phil))1: 16; 231; Col: ata: ΤΉΝ 6:8, τὰ Ἴ Tim, 1:5; ἀν 18} 
4:12; 6:11; IL Tim. 1:6, 13; 2:22 i 

ἀγαπητός, Rom. 12:19; I Cor. 10:14; II Cor. 7:1; 12:19; Phil. 2:12; 
4:1 | 

ἄγγελος, Rom. 8:38; I Cor. 6:3; IL Cor. 11:14; Gal. 1:8; 3:19; 4:14; 
I Tim. 3:16 

ἁγιασμός, Rom. 6:19, 22; I Cor. 1:30; I Thess. 4:4, 7; II Thess. 2:13; 
I Tim. 2:15 

ἅγιος, I Cor. 1:2; Eph. 5:3; Col.-3:12; I Tim. 5:10 

ἁγιωσύνη, Rom. 1:4; IL Cor. 7:1; I Thess. 3:13 

ἁγιότης, II Cor. 1:12 

ἁγνία, 1 Tim. 4:12; 5:2 

ayvorns, 11 Cor. 6:5 

ἀγνωσία, I Cor. 15:34 

ἀγριέλαιος, Rom. 11:17 

ἀγρυπνία, II Cor. 6:5; 11:27 

ἀγών, Col. 2:1; I Thess. 2:2 

ἀδηλότης, I Tim. 6:17 

ἀδελφή, I Cor. 9:5; I Tim. 5:2 

ἀδελφός, Rom. 1:13; 7:1, 4; 8:12, 29; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, 30; 
16:17; I Cor. 1:10, 26; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 5:11; 6:8; 7:24, 29; 10:1; 
E7335) 1455, 26; 26/20; 26<2, 3,50, 80; 20:35; -2) Cors-1:6; 
δ 13555; Veal αὐτὸν ιν ais) Δ. ἌΤΙ 5284, 855" O23, 181 
Phil: 1::12;-371, 173" 4:1, 8; I Thess: 2:1, 0,34, 175 3:7; 4:4; 11; 133 
κα dy 12, ΔΑ, 98) AL Thess. 2533274, 14.521, Ὁ. 33; 15; 1 ΠΗ, 
5:1; 6:2; Philem. 7, 16, 20 

ἀδικία, Rom. 1:18 (bis), 29; 6:13; 9:14; IL Thess. 2:10; Il Tim. 2:19 

12 [12 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 13 


ἄδικος, I Cor. 6:9 

ἄζυμος, I Cor. 5:8 

ἀήρ, I Cor. 9:26; 14:10; I Thess. 4:17 

ἀθανασία, I Cor. 15:53; I Tim. 6:16 

nor 1 ΤΊΝΙ; 21ὺ 

igs, Rom. 3:15; I Cor. 15: 50; Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12 

ws capes I Cor. 13:12 

αἵρεσις, I Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20 

αἴσθησις, Phil. 1:9 

αἰσχρολογία, Col. 3:8. 

αἰσχρός, Eph. 5:12 

αἰσχρότης, Eph. 5:4 

αἰχμαλωσία, Eph. 4:8 

ἀκαθαρσία, Rom. 1:24; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:19; 5:3; Col. 3:5; I Thess. 
2:3; 4:7 

ἀκάθαρτος, 11 Cor. 6:17 

ἀκαταστασία, I Cor. 14:32; II Cor. 6:5; 12:20 

axon, Rom. 10:17; I Cor. 12:7; Gal. 3:2, 5; I Thess. 2:13 

ἀκροβυστία, Rom. 2:25; 3:30; 4:10 (bis), 11, 12; I Cor. 7:18; Gal. 
5:6; 6:15; Eph. 2:11; Col. 3:10 

ἀκρογωνίαιος, Eph. 2:20 

ἀλαζών, Rom. 1:30; II Tim. 3:2 

ἅλας, Col. 4:6 

ἀλήθεια, Rom. 2:2; 9:1; 15:8; I Cor. 5:8; IL Cor. 6:7; 7:14 (bis); 
11710;° 12:6; δὲ. ὍΣ: Eph. τ δ, 255° κε: 6:24; Phil’:1:18; 
Col. 1:6; IL Thess. 2:13; I Tim. 2:4, 7 (bis); IL Tim. 2:25; 3:7; 
Titus 1:1 

ἅλυσις, Eph. 6:19 

cases Rom. 3:9, 20; 5:13 (bis): 6:14, 16; 7:7, 8, 13, 25; 8:3 (bis), 

42233) If Cor. λιν Gal σεν 1.22. 1 ΤῊ 6:22) TE Tim, 

bbe 

ἁμαρτωλός, Rom. 3:7; 5:8; Gal. 2:15, 17; I Tim. 1:9, 15 

ἀναγκαῖος, II Cor. 9:5 

ἀνάγκη, Rom. 13:5; I Cor. 7:37; 9:16; IL Cor. 6:4; 9:7; 12:10; 
Philem. 14 

ἀνάθεμα, Rom. 9:3; I Cor. 12:3; 16:21; Gal. 1:8, 9 

dvaxaivwous, Titus 3:5. 

ἀνάστασις, Rom. 1:4; I Cor. 15:12, 13, 21; IL Tim. 2:18 

ἀναστροφή, I Tim. 4:12 

ἀνδραποδιστής, 1 Tim. 1:10 

13 


14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


ἀνδροφόνος, 1 Tim. 1:9 

ἄνεμος, Eph. 4:14 

ἄνεσις, IT Cor. 2:13; 7:5; 8:13; IL Thess. 1:7 

ἀνήρ, I Cor. 11:7, 8 (bis), 9, τι (bts); 13:11; IL Cor. 11:2; Eph. 4:13; 
I Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6 

ἄνθραξ, Rom. 12:20 

ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, Eph. 6:6; Col. 3:22 

ἄνθρωπος, Rom. 1:23; 2:9, 29; 3:4, 5; I Cor. 2:5, 9; 3:3, 4, 21; 9:8; 
14:2; 15:21 (bis), 33, 39; IL Cor. 8:21; 12:4; Gal. 1:1, 10 (¢er), 
11,12; 2:6; 3:15 (bis); Eph. 6:7; Phil. 2:7, 8; Col. 3:23; I Thess. 
2:1, 6, 13; 4:8; I Tim. 2:5 (bis); 6:16; Titus 1:14 

ἀνόητος, Rein. 1:14 ' 

ἄνοιξις, Eph. 6:19 

ἀνομία, IT Cor. 6:14; I Tim. 1:9; Titus 2:14 

ἀνόσιος, 11 Tim. 1:9 

ἀνταπόδομα, Rom. 11:9 

ἀντικείμενος, 1 Cor. 16:9 

ἀντίλημψις, I Cor. 12:28 

ἀντίλυτρον, I Tim. 2:6 

ἀνυπότακτος, 1 Tim. 1:9 

ἀπάντησις, 1 Thess. 4:17 

ἀπαρχή, Rom. 16:5; I Cor. 15:20, 23; 16:15 

ἀπάτη, II Thess. 2:10 

ἀπείθεια, Rom. 11:32 

sehen nes, I Cor. 7:22 

ἀπιστία, 1 Tim. 1:13 

ἄπιστος, 1 Cor. 6:6; 14:23, 24; IL Cor. 6:14, 15 

ἁπλότης, Rom. 12:8; IL Cor. 9:11, 13; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22 

ἀπόδειξις, I Cor. 2:4 

ἀποδοχή, I Tim. 4:10 

ἀποκάλυψις, Rom. 2:5; 16:25; I Cor. 14:6; If Cor. 12:1; Gal. 1:12; 
2:2; Eph. 1:17; 3:3 

ἀπόλαυσις, I Tim. 6:17 

ἀπολογία, II Cor. 7:11; Phil. 1:16 

ἀπολύτρωσις, I Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:14; 4:30 

ἀποστολή, Rom. 1:5; Gal. 2:8 

ἀπόστολος, Rom. 1:1; 11:13; I Cor. 1:1; 9:1, 2; 12:28 (bis), 20; 
48:93 dl Cote. 1627 3383; ἀξέϊαν Galo xia; Ephy 4215. ΩΝ 
Phil, 2:25; Col. r:1; I Thess. 2:7; I Tim. 1:1; 2:7; IL Tim. 1:1, 
11; Titus 1:1 

14 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 15 


ἀποτομία, Rom. 11:22 (bis) | 

ἀπώλεια, Rom. 9:22; Phil. 1:28; 3:18; I Tim. 6:9 

dpa, Rom. 3:14 

ἀργύριον, I Cor. 3:12 

ἀρεσκία, Col. 1:10 

ἀρετή, Phil. 4:8 

ἁρπαγμός, Phil. 2:6 

ἅρπαξ, I Cor. 5:11; 6:10 

ἀρραβών, Eph. 1:14 

dpoevoxoirys, I Cor. 6:9; I Tim. 1:10 

ἄρσην, Rom. 1:27; Gal. 3:28 

ἄρτος, I Cor. 10:17; II Cor. 9:10; IL Thess. 3:7 

ἀρχάγγελος, I Thess. 4:16 

ἀρχή, Rom. 8:38; I Cor. 15:24; Eph. 1:21; Phil. 4:15; Col. 1:16; 
2:10; II Thess. 2:13 

ἀσεβής, Rom. 5:6; I Tim. 1:9 

ἀσέβεια, Rom. 1:18; 11:26; Il Tim. 2:17 

ἀσέλγεια, Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:20 

ἀσθένεια, I Cor. 2:3; 15:43; IL Cor. 12:9, 10; 13:4; Gal. 4:13 

ἄσοφος, Eph. 5:15 

ἀσπίς, Rom. 3:13 

ἀστήρ, I Cor. 15:41 (éer) 

ἀσφάλεια, I Thess. 5:2 

dowria, Eph. 5:18; Titus 1:6 

ἄν, Rom. 1:26; 9:21; I Cor. 11:15; 15:42; II Cor. 6:8; 11:21; 
II Tim. 2:21 

ἄτομος, 1 Cor. 15:52 

αὐτάρκεια, 11 Cor. 9:8; I Tim. 6:6 

ἀφειδία, Col. 2:23 

ἀφθαρσία, Rom. 2:7; I Cor. 15:42, 53; Eph. 6:24; 11 Tim. 1:10 

ἀφορμή, Rom. 7:8, 11; Gal. 5:13; Il Cor. 5:12; 11:12 

ἀφροσύνη, 11 Cor. 11:1, 17, 21 

ἄφρων, Rom. 2:20; I Cor. 15:36 


βαθμός, I Tim. 3:13 
βάθος, Rom. 8:39; 11:33; ΠῚ Cor. 8:2 
βάπτισμα, Eph. 4:5 
βάρβαρος, Rom. 1:14; I Cor. 14:11 (bis); Col. 3:10 
βάρος, II Cor. 4:17; 1 Thess. 2:7 
βασιλεία, 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 5:21 
15 


16 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


βέβηλος, I Tim. 1:9 

Βενιαμείν, Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5 

βίβλος, Phil. 4:3 

βιωτικός, I Cor. 6: 3,4 

βλασφημία, Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; I Tim. 6:4 
βλάσφημος, 1 Tim. 1:13; Il Tim. 3:2 

βρέφος, 11 Tim. 3:15 

βρῶμα, Rom. 14:15, 20; I Cor. 3:2; 8:8, 13 
βρῶσις, Rom. 14:17, 20; II Cor. 9:10; Col. 2:16 


yayypawa, ΤΊ Tim. 2:17 

yara, I Cor. 3:2 

yaornp, I Thess. 5:3; Titus 1:12 

yeveadoyia, I Tim. 1:4; Titus 3:9 

γένος, II Cor. 41:26; Phil. 3:5 

γεώργιον, I Cor. 3:9 

γῆ, I Cor. 8:5; 15:46; Eph. 3:15 

γινώσκων, Rom. 7:1 

γλῶσσα, I Cor. 12:10 (bis), 28, 30; 13:8; 14:5 (bis), 6, 13, 14, 18, το, 23, 
27, 40 

γνώμη, I Cor. 7:25; ΠῚ Cor. 8:10 

γνῶσις, Rom. 11:33; LCor.8:1,10; 12:8; 13:8; 14:6; IL Cor.6:5; 8:7 

yovevs, Rom. 1:30 

γράμμα, Rom. 2:27, 29; 7:6; IL Cor. 3:6, 7 

γραμματεύς, I Cor. 1:20; IL Tim. 3:15 

γραφή, Rom. 1:3; 16:26 

γυμνότης, Rom. 8:35; IL Cor. 11:27 

γυναικάριον, 11 Tim. 3:6 

γυνή,1 Cor. 5:1; 9:5; 11:8 (bis), 9 (bis), 11 (bis); Gal. 4:4; I Tim. 5:9 


δαιμόνιον, I Cor. 10:20, 21 (bis); I Tim. 4:1 
δάκρυον, IT Cor. 2:4 
δέησις, IL Cor. 9:14; Eph. 6:18 (dis) 
δειλία, IL Tim. 1:6 
δεξιός, Rom. 8:34; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1 
δέσμιος, Philem. 1, 9 
δεσμός, IL Tim. 2:9 
διάβολος, I Tim. 3:11 
διαθήκη, IL Cor. 3:6; Gal. 4:24 
διακονία, Rom. 12:7; I Cor. 12:5; 16:15; Eph. 4:12; I Tim. 1:12; 
II Tim. 4:11 
16 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 17 


διάκονος, Rom. 13:4 (bis); I Cor. 3:5; IL Cor. 3:6; 6:4; 1:15, 23; 
Gal. 2:17; Col. 1:7; I Thess. 3:2 

διάκρισις, Rom. 14:1; I Cor. 12:10 

διαλογισμός, Rom. 14:1; I Tim. 2:8 

διαπαρατριβή, 1 Tim. 6:5 

διαστολή, Rom. 3:22; 10:12; I Cor. 14:7 

διατροφή, I Tim. 6:8 

διδασκαλία, 1 Tim. 5:17; IL Tim. 3:16 

διδάσκαλος, Rom. 2:20; I Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 4:11; I Tim. 2:7; 
II Tim. 1:11 

διδαχή, Rom. 6:17; I Cor. 14:6; II Tim. 4:2 

δικαιοκρισία, Rom. 2:5 

δίκαιος, Rom. 3:10; 5:7; II Thess. 1:5; I Tim. 1:9 

Kicubintre: Rom: 1:27; 3:5, 21, 22; 4:3, Ν᾽ 6,0) Σὸν 223 5321; 6:13, 16; 
8:10; 9:30 (fer), 31; 10:4, 10; 14:17; I Cor. 1:30; II ‘Che: §i2t; 
6:14; 11:15; Gal. 2:21; 3:6; 5:5; Eph. 4:24; 5:9; Phil. 1:10; 
3:6; I Tim. 6:11; Il Tim. 2:22; 3:16; Titus 3:4 

ES DS Rom. 5:16 

δικαίωσις, Rom. 5:18 

δίκη, IL Thess. 1:9 

διχοστασία, Gal. 5:20 

δίψος, IT Cor. 11:27 

διωγμός, Rom. 8:35; II Cor. 12:10; IL Tim. 3:11 

διώκτης, I Tim. 1:13 

δόγμα, Eph. 2:15 

δοκιμή, Rom. 5:3; II Cor. 8:1; 13:3 

δόλος, Rom. 1:29; IL Cor. 12:16; I Thess. 2:3 

δόμα, Eph. 4:8 

δόξα, Rom. 2:7, 10; 4:20; 9:23; 15:7; I Cor. 2:7; 10:31; 11:7 (%s), 
15; 15:41 (quater), 42; II Cor. 1:20; 3:7, 8, 9 (bis), rr (bis), 18 
(bis); 4:17; 6:8; 8:23; Eph. 1:6, Τῶι: 3213; -Phil. 1:10; 2:10; 
4:19; Col. 3:4; I Thess. 2:6; 11 Thess. 2:14; I Tim. 1:17; 3:16; 
II Tim. 2:10 

δόσις, Phil. 4:15 

δουλεία, Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:24; 5:1 

δοῦλος, Rom. 1:1; 6:16 (bis), 17, 20; I Cor. 7:21, 22 (bis), 23; 12:13; 
II Cor. 4:5; Gal. 1:10; 3:28; 4:1, 7; Eph. 6:7, 8; Phil. 1:1; 2:7; 
Col. 3:11; 4:12; Titus 1:1; Philem. 15 (bis) 

δύναμις, Rom. 1:4, 16, 20; 8:38; 15:13, 19 (bis); I Cor. 1:18, 24; 
2:4, 5; 4:20; 12:9, 28, 29; 15:24, 43; IL Cor. 1:8; 6:7; 8:3 (bis); 

17 


18 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


12:12; 13:4 (bis); Gal. 3:5; Eph. 1:21; 3:16; Col. 1:11, 20; 
I Thess. 1:5; II Thess. 1:7, 11; 2:9; II Tim. 1:6, 8 

δυνατός, I Cor. 1:26 

δυσφημία, IT Cor. 6:8 


Ἑβραῖος, II Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5 (ds) 

ἐγκράτεια, Gal. 5:23 

ἑδραίωμα, I Tim. 3:15 

ἐθελοθρησκεία, Col. 2:23 

ἔθνος, Rom. 2:14; 3:29 (bis); 9:24, 30; 11:12, 13; 15:10, 12 (bis), 18; 
I Cor. 1:23; 12:2; Il Cor. 11:26; Gal. 2:15; I Tim. 2:7; 3:16 

εἶδος, II Cor. 5:7 

εἰδωλόθυτος, I Cor. 8:7 

εἰδωλολάτρης, I Cor. 5:11 

εἰδωλολατρία, I Cor. 6:9; 10:7; Gal. 5:20; Col. 3:5 

εἴδωλον, II Cor. 6:16 

εἰκών, I Cor. 11:7; II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; 3:10 

εἰλικρίνεια, I Cor. 5:8; Il Cor. 1:12; 2:17 

εἰρήνη; Rom. 1:7; 2:10; 3:17; 5:1; 8:6; 14:17; 15:13; I Cor. 1:3; 
7:15; 14:33; 16:11; Il Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; 5:22; 6:16; Eph. 1:2; 
2:15, 17 (bts); 6:23; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; I Thess. 1:1; 5:2; 
II Thess. 1:2; I Tim. 1:2; Il Tim. 1:2; 2:22; Titus 1:4; Philem. 3 

ἐκδίκησις, Rom. 12:19; II Cor. 7:11; IL Thess. 1:8 

ἔκδικος, Rom. 13:4; 1 Thess. 4:6 

ἐκζήτησις, 1 Tim. 1:4 

ἐκζητῶν, Rom. 3:11 

ἐκκλησία, I Cor. 11:18; 14:5, 19, 28, 35; II Cor. 8:23; I Tim. 3:15 

ἐκλεκτός, Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:11; Titus 1:1 

ἐκλογή, Rom. 9:11; II:5 

ἑκούσιος, Philem. 14 

ἐλεγμός, IL Tim. 3:16 

ἔλεος, Rom. 9:23; 15:9; Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:4; I Tim. 1:2; IL Tim. 
1:2, 16, 18 

ἐλευθερία, 11 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 5:13 

ἐλεύθερος, I Cor. 7:21, 22; 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:11 

Ἕλλην, Rom. 1:14, 16; 2:9, 10; 3:9; 10:12; I Cor. 1:22, 24; 10:32; 
12:13; Gal. 2:4; 3:28 

ἐλπίς, Rom. 4:18 (bis); 5:2, 4; 8:20, 24; I Cor. 9:10 (bis); 13:13; 
IL Cor. 3:12; 10:15; Gal. 5:5; Eph. 2:12; 4:4; I Thess. 2:19; 
4:13; 5:8; IL Thess. 2:16; Titus 1:1; 3:7 

18 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES ἢ 19 


ἐναντίος, Titus 2:8 

ἔνδειγμα, IL Thess. 1:4 

ἔνδειξις, Rom. 3:25; Phil. 1:28 

ἐνέργεια, Eph. 4:16; IL Thess. 2:9, 11 

ἐνέργημα, I Cor. 12:6 

ἐνεστώς, Rom. 8:38; I Cor. 3:22 

ἐνιαυτός, Gal. 4:10 

ἐνκοπή, I Cor. 9:12 

ἔντευξις, 1 Tim. 4:5 

ἐντολή, I Cor. 7:19; 14:38; Eph. 6:2; Titus 1:14 

ἐντροπή, 1 Cor. 6:4; 15:34 

ἐξουσία, Rom. 9:21; 13:1 (bis); I Cor. 7:37; 9:4, 5,6; 1:10; 15:24; 
Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16; 2:10; Π Thess. 3:9 

ἑορτή, Col. 2:16 

ἐπαγγελία, Rom. 9:9; Gal. 3:18 (bis), 29; 4:23, 28; Eph. 6:2; I Tim. 
4:9; IL Tim. 1:1 

ἔπαινος, Rom. 13:3; Eph. 1:6, 12, 14; Phil. 1:10; 4:8 

ἐπανόρθωσις, II Tim. 3:16 

ἐπίγειος, Phil. 2:10 

ἐπίγνωσις, Rom. 1:28; 3:20; 10:2; Phil. 1:9; Col. 2:2; 3:10; I Tim. 
2:4; IL Tim. 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1; Philem. 6 

ἐπίθεσις, I Tim. 4:14 

ἐπιθυμητής, I Cor. 10:6 

ἐπιθυμία, Rom. 7:8; 13:14; Gal. 5:16; Col. 3:5; I Thess. 2:17; 4:5; 
I Tim. 6:9; II Tim. 3:7 

ériopxos, 1 Tim. 1:10 

ἐπιπόθησις, II Cor. 7:11 

ἐπιποθία, Rom. 15:23 

ἐπισκοπή, 1 Tim. 3:1 

ἐπιστολή, I Cor. 16:3; II Cor. 3:3; 10:11; II Thess. 2:2, 15 

ἐπιταγή, Rom. 16:26; I Cor. 7:6; IL Cor. 8:8; I Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:3; 
2:15 

ἐπίτροπος, Gal. 4:2 

ἐπιχορηγία, Phil. 1:19 

ἐπουράνιος, Phil. 2:10 

ἐργασία, Eph. 4:19 

ἐργάτης, II Cor. 11:13; IL Tim. 2:15 

ἔργον, Rom. 2:7; 3:20, 28; 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32; 10:19; 11:6; 15:18; Gal. 
2:16 (ter); 3:2, 5, 10; Eph. 2:9, 10; 4:12; Phil. 1:22; Col. 3:17; 
II Thess. 1:11; I Tim. 2:10; 6:17; IL Tim. 4:5; Titus 3:5, 8, 14 

19 


20 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


ἐρημία, I Cor. 12:10; ΠῚ Cor. 11:26 

ἐριθία, ΤΙ Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Phil. 1:16; 2:2 

ἔρις, Rom. 1:29; 13:13; I Cor. 1:11; 3:3; IL Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; 
Phil. 1:15; I Tim. 6:4; Titus 3:9 

ἑρπετόν, Rom. 1:23 

ἔσοπτρον, I Cor. 13:12 

ἑτερόγλωσσος, I Cor. 14:21 

ἑτοιμασία, Eph. 6:15 

ἕτοιμος, IL Cor. 10:6 

εὐαγγέλιον, Rom. 1:2; II Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6; II Thess. 2:14 

εὐαγγελιστής, Eph. 4:11; IL Tim. 4:5 

εὐγενής, I Cor. 1:26 

εὐδοκία, Phil. 1:15; II Thess. τσὶ. 

εὐλογία, Rom. 15:29; II Cor. 9:5, 6 (bis); Eph. 1:3 

εὔνοια, Eph. 6:7 

εὐσέβεια, I Tim. 2:2; 4:8; 6:3; I Tim. 6:11; II Tim. 3:5; Titus 1:1 

εὐσχημοσύνη, I Cor. 12:23 

εὐτραπελία, Eph. 5:4 

εὐφημία, IT Cor. 6:8 

εὐχαριστία, Col. 2:7; 4:2; I Thess. 3:9; IL Cor. 9:11; Eph. 5:4; Phil. 
4:6; I Tim. 4:3, 4 

εὐωδία, 11 Cor. 2:15; Eph. 5:2; Phil. 4:18 

dasspents: Rom. 1:30 

ἔχθρα, Rom. 8:7; I Cor. 15:26; Gal. 5:20; IL Thess. 3:15 

ἐχθρός, Rom. 5:10; 11:28; Gal. 4:16; Col. 1:20 


ζῆλος, Rom. 10:2; 13:13; I Cor. 3:3; II Cor. 7:11; 11:2; 12:20; Gal. 
5:20; Phil. 3:6 

ζηλωτής, Gal. 1:14; Titus 2:14 

ζημία, Phil. 3:7, 8 

ζήτησις, I Tim. 6:4; Titus 3:9 

ζυγός, Gal. 5:1; I Tim. 6:1 

ζύμη, I Cor. 5:8 (bis); Gal. 5:9 

ζωή, Rom. 2:7; 5:18, 21; 6:4, 22, 23; 7:10; 8:6, ro, 38; 11:15; I Cor. 
3:22; IL Cor. 2:16 (bis); Gal. 6:8; Phil. 1:20; 2:16; 4:3; 1 Tim. 
1:16; 4:9; IL Tim. 1:1, 10; Titus 1:1; 3:7 

ζῶντες, Rom. 14:9; I Tim. 4:1 


ἡγαπημένος, Col. 3:12 
ἡλικία, Eph. 4:13 
20 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 21 


ἥλιος, I Cor. 15:41 

ἡμέρα, Rom. 2:5, 16; 13:13; I Cor. 4:3; 15:31; IL Cor. 4:16 (bis); 
14:28; Gal. “4sz0;" Phil. 2:16; Ἐ ‘Thess. 2:9; 3:10; 5:3, 5,: 8; 
II Thess. 3:8; I Tim. 5:5; II Tim. 1:4 

ἡσυχία, I Thess. 3:12; I Tim. 2:11, 12 


θάλασσα, IT Cor. 11:26 

θάνατος, Rom. 1:32; 6:9, 16, 21, 23; 7:10, 13 (bis); 8:6, 38; I Cor. 3:22; 
15:21, 55 (bis); II Cor. 1:10; 2:16 (bts); 4:21; 7:10; 11:23; 
Phil, 1:20; 2:8, 9, 27, 30 

θαῦμα, IT Cor. 11:14 

θέατρον, I Cor. 4:9 

θειότης, Rom. 1:20 

θέλημα, Rom. 15:32; I Cor. 1:1; 16:12; II Cor. 1:1; 8:5; Eph. 1:1; 
Col. 1:1; 4:12; I Thess. 4:3; 5:18; II Tim. 1:1 

θεμέλιος, I Cor. 3:10; I Tim. 6:19 

θεός, Rom. 1:2, 4, 17, 18, 21; 2217; 325; 18, 21, 225 422,17; 72253 
8:7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 27, 33; 9:5, 26; 10:2; 11:22 (bis); 13:1 (bis); 
15:32; I Cor. 1:1, 3, 20, 24 (bts), 30; 2:5, δὲ 3:8;'9 (bts), 26; 
4:1; 7:24, 40; 8:4, 6; 10:20; 12:3; 14:2; II Cor. 6:16; 7:9, 10; 
1152; 13:4. (bts); Gall ‘4:8; Eph. x21; 4:63) Phils 2:25 412; 
Col. 1:1; 3:12; I Thess. 2:1, 13; 5:18; II Thess. 1:8; 2:4 (bis); 
I Tim. 134,173 2:5; δε τ, I Tim. 1:1, 8; Titus:x:1 

θεοσέβεια, 1 Tim. 2:10 

θεοστυγής, Rom. 1:30 

θῆλυς, Gal. 3:28 

θήρα, Rom. 11:9 

θηρίον, Titus 1:12 

θλίψις, Rom. 2:9; 8:35; I Cor. 7:28; IL Cor. 2:4; 6:4; 7:13; 8:2, 13; 
Phil. 1:17; I Thess. 1:6; IL Thess. 1:6 3 

θρησκεία, Col. 2:18 

θρόνος, Col. τ: τό 

θυγάτηρ, IL Cor. 6:18 

θυμός, Rom. 2:8; IL Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8 

θύρα, I Cor. 16:9 | 

θυσία, Rom. 12:1; Eph. 5:2; Phil. 4:18 

θώραξ, I Thess. 5:8 


ἴαμα, I Cor. 12:9, 28, 30 
ἰδιώτης, I Cor. 14:23, 24; II Cor. 11:6 
21 


22 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


ἱερόθυτος, I Cor, 10:28 

Ἰησοῦς, II Cor. 11:4 

ἱλαρότης, Rom. 12:8 

ἱλαστήριον, Rom. 3:25 

ἱματισμός, I Tim. 2:9 

ἰός, Rom. 3:13 

Ιουδαῖος, Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 10, 17, 28, 29; 3:9, 29; 9:24; 10:12; I Cor. 
1:22, 23, 24; 9:20; 10:32; 12:13; II Cor. 11:24; Gal. 2:14, 15; 
3:28; Col. 3:11 

ἰσότης, II Cor. 8:14 (bis) 

Ἰσραήλ, Rom. 9:6; Phil. 3:5 

Ἰσραηλίτης, Rom. 8:4; 11:1; IL Cor. 11:22 

ἰχθύς, I Cor. 15:39 


ἐαθαίρενια, IT Cor. 10:4, 8; 13:10 

RES, Rom. 6:4; 7:6 

καιρὸς, Rom. 5:6; I Cor. 4:4; Gal. 4:10; 6:9, το 

κακία, Rom. 1:29; I Cor. 5:8; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; eis Δ: 3 

κακοηθία, Rom. 1:29 

κακός, Rom. 7:19; 12:17 (bis); 13:10; 14:20; I Con: 10:6; I Thess. 
5:15 (bis); IL Tim. 4:14 

κακοῦργος, IT Tim. 2:9 

καλάμη, I Cor. 3:12 

καλλιέλαιος, Rom. 11:24 

καλός, Rom. 12:17; 14:21; IL Cor. 8:20; Gal. 4:18 (bis) 

κάλυμμα, IT Cor. 3:15 

καρδία, Rom. 2:5, 29; 6:17; 10:10; I Cor. 2:9; IL Cor. 2:4; 3:3; 5:12; 
Col. 3:22; I Thess. 2:17; I Tim. 1:5; II Tim. 2:22 

καρπός, Rom. 6:21; Phil. 1:22 

κατάκριμα, Rom. 5:16; 8:1 

κατάκρισις, IT (οΥ. 7:3 

καταλαλιά, IT Cor. 12:20 

κατάλαλος, Rom. 1:30 

καταλλαγή, Rom. 11:15 

κατάνυξις, Rom. 11:8 

κατάρα, Gal. 3:10, 13 

κατάστημα, Titus 2:3 

καταστολή, 1 Tim. 2:9 

καταχθόνιος, Phil. 2:10 

κατηγορία, Titus 1:6 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 23 


κατοικητήριον, Eph. 2:22 

καύχημα, Rom. 4:2; I Cor. 9:16; IL Cor. 1:13; 5:12; Phil. 2:16 

καύχησις, II Cor. 7:4; I Thess. 2:19 

κέλευσμα, I Thess. 4:16 

κενοδοξία, Phil. 2:2 

κενός, Gal. 2:2; Phil. 2:16 (bis); I Thess. 3:5 

κέρδος, Phil. 1:21; 3:7; Titus 1:10 

κεφαλή, I Cor. 11:3 (bis), 4; Eph. 1:22; 5:23 (bs) 

κήρυγμα, Titus 1:3 

κήρυξ, 1 Tim. 2:7; IL Tim. 1:11 

κίνδυνος, Rom. 8:35; II Cor. 11:26 (octies) 

κλάδος, Rom. 11:19 

κλαίων, Rom. 12:15 

κλέπτης, I Cor. 6:10; I Thess. 5:2, 4 

κληρονομία, Eph. 5:5 

κληρονόμος, Rom. 4:13; 8:17 (bis); Gal. 3:29; 4:7 

κλῆσις, II Tim. 1:9 

κλητός, Rom. 1:6 

κοιλία, Gal. 1:15 

κοινωνία, I Cor. 1:9; 10:16 (bis); IL Cor. 6:14; Gal. 2:9; Phil. 2:1 

κοινωνός, 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; II Cor. 1:7; Philem. 17 

κοίτη, Rom. 9:10; 13:13 

κόκκος, I Cor. 15: 37 

κολακία, I Thess. 2:5 

κὐνυν, Il Cor. 6:5; 11:23, 27; Gal. 6:17; II Thess. 3:8 

κόσμος, Rom. 1:20; 4:13; 5:13; 11:12, 15; I Cor. 3:22; 14:10; II Cor. 
5:19; Gal. 6:14; Eph. 1:4; Phil. 2:15; I Tim. as 

κράτος, 1 Tim. 6:16 

κραυγή, Eph. 4:31 

κρέας, Rom. 14:21; I Cor. 8:13 

κρίμα, Rom. 13:2; I Cor. 11:29, 34; 1 Tim. 3:6; 5:12 

κρίσις, I Tim. 5:24 

κριτήριον, I Cor. 6:2 

wduiieel I Cor. 15:39 

κτίσις, Rom. 1:20; 8:39; II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15 

κυβέρνησις, I Cor. 12:28 

κύκλος, Rom. 15:19 

κύμβαλον, I Cor. 13:1 

κύριος, Rom. 1:7; 10:9; 16:8, 11, 12 (bis), 13, 22; I Cor. 1:3; 4:17; 
7:22, 39; 8:6; 9:1, 2;. 10:21 (bis); rrst1; 12:35 :15:58; 16:10; 

23 


24 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


If Cor. 2:325..4:5; 11:17; Gal. 4:13. 5:10; : Eph, 2: εν ΡΝ 
5:8; Paves Phil. 2:10; 3:13; 4:2, 10; isaac tc I Thess. 
5:12; ΕἸ Thess. 3:4, 12; Philem. τό 

κυριότης, Eph. 1:21; Col. τ: 6 

κῶμος, Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:21 


λαός, Rom. 9:25, 26; I Cor. 6:16 

λάχανον, Rom. 14:2 

λειτουργός, Rom. 15:16; Phil. 2:25 

λέων, IT Tim. 4:17 

λήμψις, Phil. 3:15 

λῃστής, IL Cor. 11:26 

λίθος, I Cor. 3:12; II Cor. 3:7 

λίμμα, Rom. 11:5 

λιμός, Rom. 8:35; IL Cor. 11:27 

λογισμός, II Cor. 10:5 

λογομαχία, I Tim. 6:4 

λόγος, Rom. 9:28; 14:12; 15:18; I Cor. 1:17; 2:1, 4; 4:20; 14:9; 
15:2; IZ Cor. 6:7; 8:7; Eph. 5:6; 6:19; Phil. 2:16; 4:15, 17; 
Col. 2:23; 3:17; I Thess. 1:5; 2:5, 13 (fer); 4:15; IL Thess. 2:2, 
15; L Tim. 4:5, 12; 5:17; 6:3; Il Tim. 1:13 

λοιδορία, I Tim. 5:14 

λοίδορος, I Cor. 5:11; 6:10 

λουτρόν, Titus 3:5 

_ λύπη, Rom. 9:2; IL Cor. 2:1, 3; 9:1, 7; Phil. 2:27 (b%s) 

λύσις, I Cor. 7:27 


μάκελλον, I Cor..10:25 
μακροθυμία, Rom. 9:22; IL Cor. 6:6; Gal. 5:23; Eph. 4:2; Col. 1:11; 
3:12; IL Tim. 4:2 
μαλακός, I Cor. 6:9 
μαργαρίτης, I Tim. 2:9 
μαρτυρία, 1 Tim. 3:7 
μάρτυς, Rom. 1:9; 1 Cor. 15: 153 II Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8; I Thess. 2:6, 10 
pataoroyia, 1 Tim. 1:6 
ματαιολόγος, Titus 1:9 
ματαιότης, Eph. 4:17 
μάχαιρα, Rom. 8:35 
μάχη, II Cor. 7:5; IL Tim. 2:23; Titus 3:9 
μέθη, Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:20 
24 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 25 


μέθυσος, I Cor. 5:11; 6:10 

μέλας, IL Cor: 3:3 

μέλλον, Rom. 8:39; I Cor. 3:22 

μέλος, Rom. 12:4, 5; I Cor. 12:14, 19, 20, 27; Eph. 4:25; 5:30 

μερίς, IT Cor. 6:15 : 

μέρος, Rom. 11:25; 15:15, 24; I Cor. 5:2; 11:18; 12:27; 13:9 (bis), 
10, 141 ἀν 11 Cor.)ts233..2: 5; Ὁ 116 

μεσίτης, Gal. 3:19; I Tim. 2:5 

μέσος, II Cor. 6:17; I Thess. 2:7; IL Thess. 2:8 

μετάλημψις, I Tim. 4:3 

μετάνοια, Rom. 2:4; II Cor. 7:9, 10; IL Tim. 2:25 

μετοχή, II Cor. 6:14 

μέτρον, 11 Cor. 10:13; Eph. 4:13, τό 

μήν, Gal. 4:10 ) 

μήτηρ, Gal. 1:15; 4:27; 1 Tim. 5:2 

μητραλοίας͵, I Tim. 1:9 

μιμητής, I Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Eph. 5:1; I Thess. 1:6; 2:14 

μισθός, Cor. 3:15; 9:17 

μνεία, Eph. 1:10, 16; I Thess. 1:2; 3:6; Philem. 4 

μοιχαλίς, Rom. 7:3 (bis) 

μοιχός, I Cor. 6:9 

μορφή, Phil. 2:5, 7 

μόρφωσις, 11 Cor. 3:5 : 

μόχθος, II Cor. 11:27; IL Thess. 3:8 

μῦθος, 1 Tim. 1:4; Titus 1:14 

μυστήριον, Rom. 16:25; I Cor. 4:1; 14:2 

μωρία, I Cor. 1:18, 23; 2:14; 3:19 

pwporoyia, Eph. 5:4 

μωρός, I Cor. 3:18 


voi, If Cor. 1:18, το (bis) 

ναός, I Cor. 3:16; 6:19; II Cor. 6:16 (bis); Eph. 2:21 

νεκρός, Rom. 1:4; 4:24; 6:4, 9, 13; 7:4; 8:11 (bis), 34; 10:8, 9; 11:15; 
14:9; 1 Cor. 15:12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 29, 32; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:20; 
Phil. 3:11; Col. 2:12; IL Tim. 2:8; 4:1 

veounvia, Col. 2:16 

᾿ψεόφυτος, 1 Tim. 3:6 

νεφέλη, I Thess. 4:17 

γήπιος, Rom. 2:20; I Cor. 3:1; 13:11 (quater); Gal. 4:1, 3; Eph. 4:14; 
I Thess. 2:7 | 

25 


20 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


νηστεία, IT Cor. 6:5; 11:27 

νῖκος, I Cor. 15:54 

νομή, IL Tim. 2:17 

νομοδιδάσκαλος, 1 Tim. 1:7 

νόμος, Rom. 2:12 (bis), 13 (bis), 17, 23a, 25 (bis); 3:20, 21, 28, 31 (bis); 
4:13, 14,15; 5:13 (bis), 20; 6:14, 15; 7:1, 2, 7, 8,9; 9:31; 10:4, 5; 
13:8, το; I Cor. 9:20 (quater); Gal. 2:16 (ter), το (bis), 21; 3:2, 5, 
10, 11, 18, 21, 23; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:4, 19, 24; 6:13; Phil. 3:5, 6, 9; 
I Tim. 1:9 | 

νουθεσία, I Cor. 10:11; Eph. 6:4 

vovs, Rom. 11:34; I Cor. 2:16 (bés); Phil. 4:7 

νύξ, I Thess. 2:9; 3:10; 5:2, 6, 7 (bés); II Thess. 3:8; I Tim. 5:5; 
II Tim. 1:4 


ξενία, Philem. 22 
ξένος, Eph. 2:12, 19 
ξύλον, I Cor. 3:12; Gal. 3:13 


ὁδηγός, Rom. 2:19 
ὁδοιπορία, II Cor. 11: 26 
ὁδός, Rom. 3:17 
ὀδύνη, Rom. 9:2; I Tim. 6:10 
οἰκία, I Cor. 11:22 
οἰκοδομή, Rom. 15:2; I Cor. 3:9; 14:3, 5, 26; IL Cor. 5:1; 10:8; 13:10; 
Eph. 4:13, 16, 29 
οἰκεῖος, Eph. 2:19; I Tim. 5:8 
οἰκονομία, I Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; I Tim. 1:4 
οἰκονόμος, I Cor. 4:1; Gal. 4:2; Titus 1:7 
οἶκος, Rom. 16:5; I Tim. 3:15; Titus 1:10; Philem. 2 
οἰκτιρμός, Phil. 2:1; Col. 3:12 
οἶνος, Rom. 14:21 
ὄλεθρος, I Cor. 5:5; I Thess. 5:3; Il Thess. 1:9; I Tim. 6:9 
ὀλίγος, Eph. 3:3; I Tim. 4:8 
ὁμιλία, I Cor. 15:33 
ὁμοίωμα, Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:7 
ὀνειδισμός, I Tim. 3:7 
ὄνομα, Eph. 1:21; 5:20; Col. 3:17; II Thess. 3:6 
ὅπλον, Rom. 6:13 (bis) 
ὀπτασία, 11 Cor. 12:1 
ὀργή, Rom. 1:18; 2:5 (bis), 8; 9:22; 13:4; Eph. 2:3; 4:31; Col. 3:8; 
I Thess. 5:9; I Tim. 2:8 
26 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 27 


ὄρος, I Cor. 13:2 

ὁσιότης, Eph. 4:24 

domi, II Cor. 2:16 (bis); Eph. 5:2; Phil. 4:18 

ov, II Cor. 1:18, 19 

οὐρανός, Rom. 1:18; I Cor. 8:5; 15:47; IL Cor. 5:2; 12:2; Gal. 1: 8; 
Eph. 3:15; 6:9; Phil. 3:20; Col. 4:1; II Thess. E37 

ovs, I Cor. 2:9 

ὀφειλέτης, Rom. 1:14; 8:12; 15:27; Gal. 5:3 

ὀφείλημα, Rom. 4:4 . 

ὀφθαλμοδουλία, Eph. 6:6; Col. 3:22 

ὀφθαλμός, I Cor. 2:9; 12:16 (bis); 15:52; Gal. 3:1 

ὀχύρωμα, IT Cor. 10:4 

ὀψώνιον, I Cor. 9:6; IL Cor. 11:8 


παγίς, Rom. 11:9; I Tim. 6:9 

πάθος, Rom. 1:26; Col. 3:5; I Thess. 4:5 

παιδαγωγός, I Cor. 4:15; Gal. 3:24, 25 

παιδεία, 1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 6:4; II Tim. 3:16 

παιδευτής, Rom. 2:20 

παιδίσκη, Gal. 4:31 

παλαιότης, Rom. 7:6 

παλινγενεσία, Titus 3:5 

mavoupyia, II Cor. 4:2; Eph. 4:14 

παντοκράτωρ, 11 Cor. 6:18 

παράβασις, Rom. 4:15; I Tim. 2:14 

παραβάτης, Gal. 2:18 

παράκλησις, 1 Cor. 14:3; IL Cor. 1:3; 8:4; Phil. 2:1; IL Thess. 2:16; 
Philem. 7 

παραμυθία, I Cor. 14:3 

παραμύθιον, Phil. 2:1 

παρηγορία, Col. Δ4:τῷΡ, 

παρθένος, II Cor. 11:2 

πάροδος, I Cor. 16:7 

πάροικος, Eph. 2:19 

παροργισμός, Eph. 4:26 

παρρησία, 11 Cor. 3:12; 7:4; Eph. 6:19; Phil. 1:20; Col. 2:15; I Tim. 
3:13; Philem. 8 

matyp, Rom. 4:11, 12, 16, 17, 18; I Cor. 1:3; 4:15; II Cor. 1:2; 6:17; 
Gal. 1:1, 3,4; Eph. 1:2; 4:6; Phil. 1:2; 2:10, 22; Col. 1:3 (ds); 
Sri 7k a esa, Tees δι ets TE Pim, 429% σὸν TE Tim. 333; ἌΡ 
1:4; Philem. 3 

27 


28 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


matpadwas, 1 Tim. 1:9 

πειρασμός, 1 Tim. 6:9 

πεποίθησις, 11 Cor. 8:22; Eph. 3:12; Phil. 3:4 

περιβόλαιον, I Cor. 11:15 

περικάθαρμα, 1 Cor. 4:13 

περικεφαλαία, 1 Thess. 5:8 

περιποίησις, 1 Thess. 5:9; II Thess. 2:14 

περισσεία, 11 Cor. 10:15 

περιτομή, Rom. 2:25, 26, 27, 29; 3:30; 4:10 (bis), 11, 12; 15:8; Gal. 
2:12; 5:6, 11; 6:15; Eph. 3:5; Col. 2:11; 3:10; 4:11 

περίψημα, I Cor. 4:13 

πετεινός, Rom. 1:23 

mBavoroyia, Col. 2:4 

πικρία, Rom. 3:14; Eph. 4:31 

πίστις, Rom. 1:5, 17 (ter); 3:22, 25, 27, 28, 30; 4:13, 16 (bis); 5:1; 
9:30, 32; 10:6; 12:3; 14:22, 23 (bis); 16:26; I Cor. 12:9; 13:13; 
ΤΠ Cor. 5:7; 8:7; Gal. 2:16 (07s), 20; 3:2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 22, 24; 
5:5, 6,23; Eph. 2:8; 4:5; 6:23; Phil. 3:9; I Thess. 5:8; II Thess. 
1:11; 2:23; L-Tim: 1:3, ὧν 5, ΤᾺ, 10; 229, ΧΟ 373334212; Of ers 
II Tim. 1:13; 2:22; 3:15; Titus 1:1, 4; 2:10; 3:15 

πιστός, II Cor. 6:15; I Tim. 4:10 

πλάνη, I Thess. 2:3; II Thess. 2:11 

πλείων, II Tim. 2:16; 3:8 

πλεονέκτης, I Cor. 5:11; 6:10 

πλεονεξία, Rom. 1:29; II Cor. 9:5; Eph. 4:19; I Thess. 2:5 

πληγή, Il Cor. 6:5; 11:23 

πλήκτης, Titus 1:7 

πληροφορία, I Thess. 1:5 

πλήρωμα, Rom. 13:10; 15:29 

πλησμονή, Col. 2:23 

πλοῦτος, Rom. 11:12 (bis), 33; Col. 2:2; I Tim. 6:17 

πνεῦμα, Rom. 1:4; 2:29; 5:5; 7:6; 8:4, 5, 9 (ter), 13, 14; 91:1; 14:17; 
15:13, 16,19; I Cor. 2:4, 13; 6:17; 7:40; 12:3 (bis), 13; 14:2, 16; 
15:45; I Cor. 3:3;'6, 18; 6:6; 7:1; 1124; Gal, 3:3; 4:20; 5:5, 6, 
18, 25 (bis); Eph. 2:18, 22; 4:4; 5:18; 6:18; Phil. 1:27; 2:1; 
3:3; Col. 1:8; I Thess. 1:5, 6; II Thess. 2:2, 13; I Tim. 1:6, 14 
Titus 3:5 

πνευματικός, 1 Cor. 2:14 (bis); 3:1; 14:37; 15:44 

ποίημα, Eph. 2:10 

ποιμήν, Eph. 4:11 

ποιῶν, Rom. 3:12 

28 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 29 


πόλεμος, 1 Cor. 14:8 

πόλις, 11 Cor. 11:26; Titus 1:5 

πονηρία, Rom. 1:29; I Cor. 5:8 

πόνος, Col. 4:13 

πορισμός, 1 Tim. 6:5, 6 

πορνεία, I Cor. 5:1 (bis); Gal. 5:20; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5 

πόρνη, I Cor. 6:5 

πόρνος, I Cor. 5:9, 11; 6:9; I Tim. 1:10 

πόσις, Rom. 14:17; Col. 2:16 

ποταμός, II Cor. 11:26 

πραὐπαθία, I Tim. 6: 11 

mpai'rys, I Cor. 4:21; Gal. 5:23; 6:1; Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:12; II Tim. 2:25 

πρεσβύτης, Philem. Ὁ 

aL acai! Rom. 8:36 

πρόγονος, IT Tim. 1:3 

mponen Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:11; 3:11; IL Tim. 1:9 

προκοπή, Phil. 1:12 

πρόκριμα, I Tim. 5:21 

πρόνοια, Rom. 13:14 

προσευχή, Eph. 6:18 

προσκαρτέρησις, Eph. 6:18 

πλόσκλησν, I Tim. 5:21 

econdpimare Rom. 9:32; 14:13, 20; I Cor. 8:9 

προσκοπή, 11 Cor. 6:3 

᾿ προστάτις, Rom. 16:2 

προσφορά, Eph. 5:2 

προσωπολημψία, Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9 

πρόσωπον, 1 Cor. 13:12 (bis); 14:25; IL Cor. 1:10; 3:18; 4:6; 
Be 225 δεν αν Fe sew. ον ΟΝ Σά res b Thess: or χὰ 
II Thess. 1:9 

πρόφασις, Phil. 1:18; I Thess. 2:5 

προφητεία, Rom. 12:6; I Cor. 12:10; 13:2, 8; 14:6; I Tim. 4:14 

προφήτης, I Cor. 12:28, 29; 14:37; Eph. 4:11 

πρωτοτόκος, Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18 

πτηνός, 1 Cor. 15:39 

πτωχός, II Cor. 6:10 

πῦρ, Rom. 12:20; I Cor. 3:13, 15; II Thess. 1:7 


ῥάβδος, I Cor. 4:21 
ῥῆμα, Rom. 10:17; II Cor. 12:4; Eph. 5:26; 6:18 
29 


30 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


pila, I Tim. 6:10 
ῥιπή, I Cor. 15:52 
ῥυτίς, Eph. 5:27 


σαβαώθ, Rom. 9:29 

᾿σάββατον, Col. 2:16 

σάλπινξ, I Thess. 4:16 

σαρκικός, I Cor. 3:3 (bis) 

σάρξ, Rom. 1:3; 2:28; 4:1; 8:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13; 9:3, 5; 1 Cor. 1:26, 
29; 6:16; 10:18; 15:50; IL Cor. 1:17; 5:16 (bis); 7:1; 10:2, 3 
(bis); Gal. 1:16; 2:20; 3:3; 4:23, 20; 5:16; 6:12; Eph. 2:11 (bis); 
523%; (6:5, 12; Phil. τε σ᾽, 413, 4 ΟΣ ask: 3:92; Ὁ Timi ine: 
Philem. 16 

Σατᾶν, 11 Cor. 12:7 

σέβασμα, II Thess. 2:4 

σελήνη, I Cor. 15:41 

σεμνότης, 1 Tim. 2:2; 3:4 

σημεῖον, Rom. 15:19; I Cor. 1:22; 14:22; IL Cor. 12:12; IL Thess. 
2:09; 3:17 

σκάνδαλον, Rom. 9:32; 11:9; 14:13; 1 Cor. 1:23 

σκέπασμα, I Tim. 6:8 

σκεῦος, II Cor. 4:7; IL Tim. 2:21 

σκιά, Col. 2:17 

σκοπός, Phil. 3:14 

σκότος, Rom. 2:19; II Cor. 4:6; 6:14; Eph. 5:8; I Thess. 5:4, 6 

σκύβαλον, Phil. 3:8 

Σκύθης, Col. 3:11 

σοφία, Rom. 11:33; I Cor. 1:17, 22, 24, 30; 2:1, 4,5, 6 (ter), 13; 12:8; 
II Cor. 1:12; Eph. 1:8, 17; Col. 1:9, 28; 2:23; 3:16; 4:5 

σοφός, Rom. 1:14; I Cor. 1:20, 26; 6:5; Eph. 5:15 

σπέρμα, Rom. 1:3; 9:7 (bis), 8, 29; 11:1; IL Cor. 9:10; 11:22; Gal. 
3:29; IL Tim. 2:8 

σπίλος, Eph. 5:27 

σπλάγχνον, Phil. 1:8; 2:1; Col. 3:12 

σπουδή, Rom. 12:8; II Cor. 7:11; 8:7 

σταυρός, Phil. 2:8 

στεῖρος, Gal. 4:27 

Pies ate, Rom. 8:26 

στενοχωρία, Rom. 2:9; 8:35; Π Bor: 6:4; 12:10 

στέφανος, Phil. 4:1; I Thess. 2:19 


30 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 31 


στόμα, Rom. 10:10; IL Cor. 13:1; Π Tim. 4:17 

στρατιώτης, II Tim. 2:3 

στῦλος, Gal. 2:9; I Tim. 3:15 

συζητητής, I Cor. 1:20 

σύζυγος, Phil. 4:3 

σύμβουλος, Rom. 11:34 

συμμέτοχος, Eph. 3:6; 5:7 

συμμιμητής, Phil. 3:17 

συμπολίτης, Eph. 2:19 

συμφώνησις, IT Cor. 6:15 — 

σύμφωνος, 1 Cor. 7:5 

συνγνώμη, I Cor. 7:6 

σύνδεσμος, Col. 3:14 

συνείδησις, I Cor. 10:29; II Cor. 4:2; I Tim. 1:5, 19; 3:9; Il Tim. 1:3 

συνέκδημος, 11 Cor. 8:19 

συνεργός, I Cor. 3:8; IL Cor. 1:24; 8:23; Col. 4:11 

σύνεσις, Col. 1:9; IL Tim. 2:7 

συνίων, Rom. 3:11 

συνκατάθεσις, 11 Cor. 6:16 

συνκληρονόμος, Rom. 8:17; Eph. 3:6 

συνκοινωνός, Rom. 11:17 

συνοχή, II Cor. 2:4 

σύνσωμος, Eph. 3:6 

σύντριμμα, Rom. 3:16 

σφαγή, Rom. 8:36 

σχῆμα, Phil. 2:8 

σχίσμα, I Cor. 1:10, 18; 12:25 

σῶμα, Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 6:16; 10:17; 12:12, 13, 16, 20, 27; 15:35, 

38 (bis); 11 Cor. 12:2, 3; Eph. 2:16; 4:4; Col. 2:23; 3:15 

σωτήρ, Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20; I Tim. 1:1; 4:10; Titus 2:14 

σωτηρία, Rom. 1:16; 10:1, 10; Phil. 1:19, 28; I Thess. 5:8, 9; II Thess. 
_ 2:13; IL Cor. 6:2 (65); 7:10; IL Tim. 2:10; 3:15 

σωφρονισμός, 11 Tim. 1:6 

σωφροσύνη, I Tim. 2:9, 15 


ταλαιπωρία, Rom. 3:16 

τάξις, I Cor. 14:40 

ταπεινοφροσύνη, Eph. 4:12; Col. 2:18, 23; 3:12 
τάφος, Rom. 3:13 

τάχος, Rom. 16:20 


31 


92 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


τεκνίον, Gal. 4:19 

τέκνον, Rom. 8:16, 17; 9:7, 8; I Cor. 4:14, 17; II Cor. 6:13; Gal. 4:28, 
31; Eph. 2:3; 5:1,9; Phil. 2:15, 22; I Thess. 2:12; I Tim. 1:1, 18; 
II Tim. 1:2; 2:1; Titus 1:4 

τέλειος, I Cor. 14:20 

τέλος, Rom. 10:4; IL Cor. 1:13; I Thess. 2:16 

τέρας, Rom. 15:19; IL Cor. 12:12; IL Thess. 2: 9 

rerperove, Rom. 1:23 

τήρησις, I Cor. 7:19 

tun, Rom. 2:7, 10; 9:21; I Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 12:23, 24; Col. 2:23; 
I Thess. 4:4; I Tim. 1:17; 5:17; 6:1, 16; IL Tim. 2:21 (bis) 

τόπος, Rom. 15:23; Eph. 4:27 

τρόμος, I Cor. 2:3; II Cor. 7:15; Eph. 6:5; Phil. 2:12; II Tim. 3:8 

τροφός, I Thess. 2:7 

τύπος, Rom. 5:14; I Cor. 10:6; Phil. 3:17; I Thess. 1:7; IL Thess. 3:9; 
I Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:7 

τυφλός, Rom. 2:19 


ὕβρις, IL Cor. 12:10 
ὑβριστής, Rom. 1:30 
υἱοθεσία, Rom. 8:15, 23; Eph. 1:5 
vids, Rom. 1:4; 8:14; 9:26; IL Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:7, 26; 4:6, 7 (bis); 
I Thess. 5:5 (δὲ) 
ὕμνος, Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16 
ὑπακοή, Rom. 1:5; 6:16 (bis); 15:18; 16:26 
ὑπερβολή, Rom. 7:13; I Cor. 12:31; IL Cor. 1:8; 4:17 (b%s); Gal. 1:13 
ὑπερήφανος, Rom. 1:30 
ὑπεροχή, I Cor. 2:1; I Tim. 2:2 
ὑπηρέτης, I Cor. 4:1 
ὕπνος, Rom. 13:11 
ὑπόκρισις, 1 Tim. 4:2 
ὑπόμνησις, IL Tim. 1:5 
ὑπομονή, Rom. 2:7; 5:3; 8:25; IL Cor. 1:6; 6:4; 12:12; Col. 1:11; 
I Tim. 6:11 
ὑπόνοια, 1 Tim. 6:4 
ὑποταγή, 1 Tim. 2:11; 3:4 
ὑποτύπωσις, 1 Tim. 1:16; IL Tim. 1:13 
ὑστέρησις, Phil. 4:11 
ὑψηλός, Rom. 11:20 
ὕψος, Eph. 4:8 
ὕψωμα, Rom. 8:39 
32 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 33 


Φαρισαῖος, Phil. 3:5 

φαρμακία, Gal. 5:20 

φθόνος, Rom. 1:29; Gal. 5:20; Phil. 1:15; I Tim. 6:4; Titus 3:3 

φθορά, I Cor. 15:42; Gal. 6:8; Col. 2:22 

φλόξ, II Thess. 1:7 

Popes, ROM. 518. 81). 1:2. 1 Cor. 9:93): EE Cor. γεν, Ὁ 88) χε; 
Eph, 5:21; 6:5; Phil. 2:12; I Tim. 5:20 

φόνος, Rom. 1:29 

φρεναπάτης, Titus 1:10 

φρόνησις, Eph. 1:8 

φυλακή, IT Cor. 6:5; 11:23 

φυλή, Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5 

φύσις, Rom. 1:26; 2:14, 27; 11:21, 24 (ter); Gal. 2:15; 4:8; Eph. 2:3 

φυσίωσις, 11 Cor. 12:20 

φωνή, I Cor. 14:7; I Thess. 4:16 

φῶς, Rom. 2:19; IL Cor. 4:6; 6:14; 11:14; Eph. 5:8, 9, 13; I Thess. 
5:5; 1 Tim. 6:16 

φωστήρ, Phil. 2:15 

φωτισμός, II Cor. 4:6 


χαίρων, Rom. 12:15 

χαλκός, I Cor. 13:1 

χαρά, Rom. 14:17; 15:13, 32; I] Cor. 1:15; Gal. 5:22; Phil. 1:4; 2:29; 
4:1; I Thess. 1:6; II Tim. 1:5; Philem. 7 

χάρις, Rom. τ: 5, 7; 424,16; 5:15; 6:14, 15,17; 7:25; 11:5, 6; 1 Cor. 
P03) στον e300, be, oa COR 1 ν 225) as tas S576; . 9:8, 35; 
Gal: αν ΟΣ Eph, ts25 2:63 4320; Phil. 112, Cok 122,135; 3:16; 
4:6; I Thess. 1:1; 2:19; IL Thess. 1:2; 2:16; I Tim. ‘1:2, 12; 
II Tim. 1:2, 3, 9; Titus 1:4; Philem. 3 

χάρισμα, I Cor. 7:7; 12:4, 28, 30 

χεῖλος, I Cor. 14:21 

χειμών, 11 Tim. 4:20 

χείρ, I Cor. 12:15; Gal. 3:19; I Tim. 5:22 

χόρτος, I Cor. 3:12 

χρεία, I Cor. 12:21, 24; I Thess. 1:8; 4:9, 12; 5:1 

χρηστός, I Cor. 15:33 

χρηστότης, Rom. 3:12; 11:22 (bis); IL Cor. 6:6; Gal. 5:23; Eph. 2:7; 
Col. 3:12 

Χριστός, Rom. 12:5; 16:5, 7, 9, 10; I Cor. 3:1; 4:10, 15; 6:15; Phil. 
1:21; 2:1; Col. 1:28; Philem. 8 . 

33 


94 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Χριστός Ἰησοῦς, Rom. 16:3; I Cor. 4:15; Phil. 3:3; 4:19; I Thess. 2:14 
χρόνος, Rom. 7:1; 16:25; II Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2 
χρυσίον, I Cor. 3:12; I Tim. 2:9 


ψαλμός, Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16 

ψευδάδελφος, II Cor. 11:26 

ψευδαπόστολος, II Cor. 11:13 

ψευδολόγος, I Tim. 4:2 

ψεῦδος, II Thess. 2:9 

ψεύστης, Rom. 3:4; I Tim. 1:10; Titus 1:12 
ψιθυρισμός, ΤΙ Cor. 12:20 

ψιθυριστής, Rom. 1:30 

yuxn, I Cor. 15:45; Eph. 6:7; Phil. 1:27; Col. 3:23 
ψύχος, II Cor. 11:27 


064, Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16 


ὥρα, Rom. 13:11; I Cor. 15:30; II Cor. 7:8; Gal. 2:5; I Thess. 2:17; 
Philem. 15 


34 


III. DETAILED STUDY OF SELECTED QUALITATIVE NOUNS 
Νόμος 


1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage-—This important 
word appears in Paul 117 times. It occurs frequently in some of the 
other New Testament literature, but is entirely absent from the Johan- 
nine Epistles and the Apocalypse, as well as from the Petrine Epistles and 
the Gospel of Mark. Outside the Pauline writings it is used generally 
with the article and with reference to the Mosaic law or to the Old 
Testament. For example, Matt. 12:5: ‘‘Or have ye not read in the 
law that on the Sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the Sab- 
bath and are guiltless?”” John 12:34: ‘‘We have heard out of the law 
that the Christ abideth forever.”” See also Luke 2:22; John 1:46; 
Acts 28:23; Heb. 9:22; Jas. 1:10. In Paul, however, νόμος frequently 
occurs qualitatively, with special emphasis upon the essential law 
quality of law, its ‘‘lawness,’’ so to speak. Yet one must not fall into 
the error of thinking that it is always the legalistic quality of law that is 
prominent in the apostle’s mind. In Rom. 13:10, πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ 
ἀγάπη, it is the ethical element of law which is to the fore. Νόμος used 
qualitatively presents this emphasis upon the essential character of law 
while at the same time designating it as the law referred to in the context. 
This is usually, but not invariably, the Mosaic law, and (a) the Mosaic 
law as a historic régime; (6) the Mosaic law legalistically interpreted; 
or (c) the Mosaic law ethically understood.* 

Of the 117 instances in Paul, 46 are preceded by the article (usually 
restrictive), the context in the great majority of cases showing that the 
law referred to is that of the Old Testament. Among other instances 
may be cited: Rom. 2:146, where the naturally lawless Gentiles are 
credited with actions that are in accordance with the Jewish law; 2:20, 
where the Jew is represented as having or believing himself to have the 
form of knowledge and truth in the Law; 3:21, where it is affirmed 

* To say that a noun is qualitative is not to deny to it specific reference to a par- 
ticular thing. The function of a qualitative noun is not primarily to designate, but to 
lay stress upon the qualities of that to which the noun refers. In the case of γόμος 
the qualities are those that distinguish law, but the particular law in mind is usually 
the Mosaic law or the Old Testament in general, but this itself variously viewed as 


indicated above. Cf. Professor Ernest D. Burton, “Redemption from the Curse of 
the Law,” American Journal of Theology, October, 1907, pp. 624-46. 


35] 35 


86 ' HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


that God’s non-legal righteousness is attested by the Law and the 
Prophets. 

In a few instances νόμος refers to some other code or statute defined 
in the context, or by metonymy to a force having an effect like that of a 
law. For example, Rom. 7:22-23: “For I delight in the law of God 
after the inward man; but I see a different law in my members, warring 
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under 
the law of sin which is in my members.” See also Rom. 7:2, 3; 
8:26, et al. 

2. Usage in prepositional phrases —Of the 71 occurrences of νόμος 
without the article in the Pauline Epistles 35 are in prepositional phrases. 
From this fact it might be gathered that nouns in prepositional phrases 
tend to be qualitative. More extensive data are needed, however, to 
justify such an assumption. What is clear is that in Paul νόμος in prepo- 
sitional phrases tends to be qualitative. In all the Pauline Epistles 
only 12 instances of νόμος with the article in prepositional phrases occur. 
In the rest of the New Testament the proportion is reversed, there being 
only 7 instances of anarthrous νόμος in prepositional phrases to 29 in 
which the article is used. The data as regards the prepositional usage 
of νόμος both with and without the article in the whole New Testament 
are as follows: 

With the article: 

ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου (Matt. 5:18; Acts 28:23; Rom. 7:2, 3, 6; 8:2). 

διὰ τοῦ νόμου (Rom. 7:5). 

εἰς τὸν νόμον (Acts 25:8). 

ἐκ τοῦ νόμου (John 12:34; Rom. 2:18; 4:16). 

ἐν τῷ νόμῳ (Matt. 12:5; 22:36; Luke 2:24; 10:26; 24:44; John 
1:46; 8:5, 17; 10:34; 15:25; Rom. 2:20; 7:23; 1 Cor. 9:9; 14:21). 

κατὰ Tod νόμου (Acts 6:13; 21:28; Heb. 7:5). 

κατὰ τὸν νόμον (Luke 2:22, 39; John 18:31; 19:7; Acts 23:3; 
24:14; Heb. 9:10, 22). 

μετὰ τὸν νόμον (Heb. 7:28). 

παρὰ τὸν νόμον (Acts 18:13). 

ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου (Rom. 3:21; Jas. 2:9). 

Without the article: 

ἄχρι νόμου (Rom. 5:13). 

διὰ νόμου (Rom. 2:12; 3:20, 27; 4:13; 7:7; Gal. 2:19, 21; Jas. 
2:12). 

εἰς νόμον (Rom. 9:31; Jas. 1:25). 

ἐκ νόμου (Rom. 4:14; 10:5; Gal. 3:18, 21 [margin]; Phil. 3:9). 

36 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 37 


ἐν νόμῳ (Luke 2:23; Acts 13:39; Rom. 2:12, 23; Gal. 3:11, 21; 
5:4; Phil. 3:6). 

κατὰ νόμον (Phil. 3:5; Heb. 7:16; 8:4; 10:8). 

περὶ νόμου (Acts 18:15). 

ὑπὸ νόμου (Rom. 6:14, 15; I Cor. 9:20 (quater); Gal. 3:23; 4:4, 5, 21; 
5:18). 

χωρὶς νόμου (Rom. 3:21; 7:8, 9). 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.—Of the 71 
anarthrous instances 61 are qualitative, the omission of the article having 
the effect, not of assigning the law referred to to a class of laws, as if it 
were one of many, but of emphasizing its quality as law. In many 
instances where the noun is limited by a qualifying genitive, itself 
anarthrous, it is the quality expressed by the whole compound expression, 
or especially that which is conveyed by the genitive which is emphasized." 

Numerous examples of the qualitative usage of νόμος might be pre- 
sented and discussed. For example, Rom. 2:23: ὃς ἐν νόμῳ καυχᾶσαι, 
διὰ THs παραβάσεως τοῦ νόμου τὸν θεὸν ἀτιμάζεις; Here in the prepositional 
phrase νόμος is qualitative. The Jew is represented as glorying in a 
religion whose distinguishing feature was its legalism. This legalistic 
character was as a matter of fact expressed in the Jewish code, but it is 
not here the code itself which the apostle has specially in mind but the 
legalistic nature of the Jewish religion. In the second half of the sen- 
tence, on the other hand, he refers to the code as such. When in the 
first clause the apostle says “ thou who gloriest in law,” it is obvious that 
if pressed to explain what law he had in mind he would have said “‘the 
Jewish law,” but it is equally obvious that though making covert or 
unconscious reference to that law his primary emphasis is upon its 
essential characteristic as a legalistic system. The omission of the 
᾿ς article in English in the first clause allows the intention of the Greek 
to make itself felt: “thou who gloriest in law, dost thou through thy 
transgression of the law dishonour God?” 

Rom. 2:25 is another example: περιτομὴ μὲν yap ὠφελεῖ ἐὰν νόμον 
πράσσῃς" ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόμου ἧς, ἡ περιτομή σου ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν. 
To bring out the qualitative force of νόμος here one might read “‘if thou 
be a law-keeper . . . . if thou be a law-transgressor,”’ or “if thou be a 
keeper of law... .a transgressor of law.’’ The insertion of the 


t A qualitative noun may be modified by a noun which is itself qualitative, as, e.g., 
in Rom. 1:1, εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ: 1:4, υἱοῦ θεοῦ; πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης; 2:29, περιτομὴ 
καρδίας. 7:25, νόμῳ θεοῦ . . . νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας. In such collocations both words are 
qualitative, the stronger qualitative emphasis naturally lying upon the second term, 


the qualitative qualifier. 
37 


38 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


definite article in translation as in the Revised Version completely obliter- 
ates the qualitative usage and alters the sense of the passage. 

Similarly in the oft-recurring phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, while Paul no 
doubt has in mind the Old Testament Jewish law as the concrete thing by 
legalistic obedience to which men were expecting to be justified, yet it is 
its quality as a legalistic system upon which he throws emphasis, and the 
proper translation would be “by works of law.’”’ So also in Rom. 7:25 
we should read not “the law of God . . . . the law of sin,” but “‘a law 
of God .. . . a law of sin.” ; 

In all these instances the qualitative usage of νόμος is clear and in 
some cases striking, particularly in passages where the qualitative and the 
definite usages stand side by side, as in Rom 2:14, 23 (already discussed); 
3:21; Gal. 3:18-19; 4:21. Taking the last mentioned as a further 
illustration it is evident that the apostle’s meaning is “tell me, ye that 
desire a legalistic type of religion, are ye not acquainted with the Jewish 
law ?” or, more briefly, “ye that desire to be under law, do ye not hear 
the law?” Doubtless the “law” the legalistic Galatians wished to be 
“under” was actually the Mosaic law, but it is not that as such which 
Paul has in mind in the phrase “under law.” That condition would 
be equally abhorrent to his mind whether it were the Mosaic or some 
other legalistic code. “Under law” meant actually in his own experience 
and doubtless in the Galatian tendency which he denounces specifically 
the Jewish law. Nevertheless it is not that or any other specific system 
which is designated by the phrase “‘under law” but the essential char- 
acter of such systems, their law quality. Had the revisers rendered this 
passage with the insight that marked their translation of Rom. 6:14-15, 
where, amending the Authorized Version, they correctly read “‘for ye 
are not under law but under grace. What then? shall we sin because 
we are not under law but under grace?” the apostle’s meaning would 
have been more adequately expressed. 

Insistence upon the recognition of the qualitative force of νόμος in 
Paul is more than a mere grammatical punctilio; it is a necessary ele- 
ment in correct interpretation. Its recognition enlarges the apostle’s 
religious philosophy from an anti-codal polemic to a wide-sweeping 
assertion of spiritual freedom. He insisted on absolute spiritual liberty, 
and his breach with legal morality was complete. To limit his reference 
to the Mosaic code alone is in many instances to reduce the force of his 
statement and to narrow his thought. Other excellent specimens of the 
qualitative use of νόμος are found in the following passages: Luke 2:23; 
Rom, 2:23; Gal. 2:21; 3:2; 5:4; Phil. 3:6; Heb. 10:8. | 

; 38 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 39 


4. The Revised Version renderings of vovos.—In the translation of 
this word the revisers have generally ignored the distinction between the 
definite 6 νόμος and the qualitative νόμος in so far as the latter is con- 
cerned. When the context makes it reasonably clear that it is the 
Mosaic law that Paul has especially in mind they have taken this as 
warrant for translating νόμος ‘‘the law,’”’ obscuring the fact that his 
emphasis is upon its law quality. ἣν 

The insertion in some instances of alternative readings bears witness 
to the revisers’ uncertainty and increases the difficulty of interpretation 
on the basis of the English text. In the following conspectus the 
Revised Version renderings of anarthrous νόμος in the Pauline literature 
are divided into two groups, viz., those passages in which a text reading 
and a marginal reading are given, and those passages in which a text 
reading only is given. These are then subdivided into their various 
possibilities. Carried out to its fullest extent the conspectus would 
present a series of 27, based upon the possible choices between the text 
and marginal readings of “law,” “ἃ law,” and ‘“‘the law.” To present 
this series in full is unnecessary, inasmuch as only a few of these possi- 
bilities are actually adopted by the revisers. The arrangement of the facts 
presented is, however, such that in every passage in the Pauline Epistles 
where νόμος appears without the article the single correct rendering is 
indicated, together with the Revised Version’s divergences therefrom 
where such occur. By this means it is hoped the conspectus may be of 
value to the New Testament interpreter in the field which it covers. 

1. Anarthrous νόμος is rendered by “the law”’ in the text and “law” 
in the margin: (a) When the marginal reading should have stood in the 
text (Rom. 3:20 [bis], 28, 31 [bis]; 4:13; 5:20; 7:10, 70, 8,9). (6) When 
the rendering should have been “ἃ law’: no instance. (c) Correctly: 
no instance. 

2. Anarthrous νόμος is rendered by a single text reading as follows: 
(a) By “law”: (i) When the rendering should have been “a law”’; 
in no instance. (ii) When the rendering should have been “the law”’; 
in no instance. (iii) Correctly (Rom. 3:27a;. 6:14, 15; 7:2a; I Tim. 
1:9). (δ) By “a law”: (i) When the rendering should have been “the 
law”; in no instance. (ii) When the rendering should have been 
“law” (Rom. 9:31a). (iii) Correctly? (Rom. 3:27); 4:15; 5:13; 

1 For cases of inaccurate translation see Rom. 2:17, 25; 3:20, 21d, 31; 4:13, 14; 
5:13, 20; 7:1, 7b, 8; 10:4, 5; 13:8; I Cor. 9:20; Gal. 2:16 (bis), 19, 21; 3:2, 10, 11, 
18, 21¢, 23; 434, 5, 21@; δὲν 18; 6:13; Phil: 3:5, 6; 9. 

2In Rom. 4:15; 5:13; Gal. 5:23, ‘‘no law” is regarded as equivalent to ‘“‘not a” 
or “not any law.” 


39 


40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


7:23@; Gal. 5:23). (c) By “the law’’: (i) When the rendering should 
have been “ἃ law”; in no instance. (ii) When the rendering should 
have been “law” (Rom. 2:12 [bis], 13 [bis], 14 [ter], 17, 23, 25 [bis]; 
2:21 4:14; 5:13; 7:25 [bis]; τ δ 10:4, 5; 13:8, 10; I Cor. 9:20 
[quater]; Gal. 2:16 [ter], το [bis], 21; 3:2, 5, 10, 11, 18, 21 [bis], 23; 4:4, 
5, 21; 5:4, 18; 6:13; Phil. 3:5, 6). (111) Correctly; in no instance. 

While the larger number of the foregoing possibilities are merely 
theoretical and actual instances of such translations do not occur, it is 
important to exhibit them; and that their failure to appear is not due 
to any intrinsic improbability or to the watchfulness of the revisers is 
indicated by the large number of instances, viz., 48, in which νόμος is 
translated ‘the law’? when a correct rendering would have required 
{{ law.” Ι 
In the τι instances where the revisers were in doubt or disagreement 
among themselves as to whether the rendering should be “the law” 
or “‘law”’ they have in every instance placed the wrong rendering “the 
law” in the text and the correct reading “law” in the margin.? In 
one instance they have read ‘‘a law” where the rendering should have 
been “‘law.”’ In one instance the anarthrous and qualitative νόμος has 
been incorrectly rendered “‘that law”; in 5 instances they have read 
“a law” correctly, and in 5 they have read “law” correctly. Thus 
out of 71 instances of anarthrous νόμος, 61 are palpable mistranslations, 
though in τα of these the correct rendering is given in the margin. That 
the obviously qualitative Pauline usage of this word could so completely 
fail of recognition in the revision of the New Testament is an evidence 
of the need that New Testament interpreters, either on the basis of the 
Greek or the English text, give attention to the qualitative usage of 
nouns; it is moreover a sufficient apology for such an investigation as 
the one here presented. 

“Apaptia. 

1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage-—This word bulks 
largely in the Pauline writings, though not, perhaps, excessively, con- 

*In Rom. 9:31b els νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασεν is translated “did not arrive at that law.” 

2 It is to be noted that the 11 instances where an alternative reading is suggested 
are in no way different from the 48 instances where the reading “the law” was chosen 
without such marginal variation. The consistent rendering of anarthrous véyos as a 
definitive noun evidently proceeds upon the assumption that νόμος refers definitely and 
almost exclusively to the law of Moses. This assumption overlooks its qualitative 
character and fails to account for the absence of the article. 

3 In all instances where νόμος with the article occurs in the Pauline Epistles it is 


correctly rendered ‘‘the law.” ‘i 


- 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 41 


sidering their nature and extent. It occurs 61 times in the Pauline 
Epistles. About one-third of its occurrences in the New Testament 
are in Paul, and two-thirds of those in Paul are in Romans. 

‘Apaptia occurs much more frequently with the article than without 
it. With the article it is used commonly in the generic sense; so, for 
example, in Rom. 5:12: “Therefore, as by one man sin [ἡ ἁμαρτία) 
entered into the world,” etc.; also Rom. 6:13: ‘Neither present 
your members unto sin [τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ] as instruments of unrighteous- 
ness,’’ etc. A few instances, however, of the restrictive usage occur; 
so, e.g., I Cor. 15:3: “Christ died for our sins’ (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν 
ἡμῶν); also vs. 17: “Ye are yet in your sins” (ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν): 
see also Gal. 1:4. | 

‘Apapria occurs without the article in the Pauline Epistles 20 times, 
viz., Rom. 3:9, 20; 4:8; 5:13 (bis); 6:14, 16; 7:7, 8, 13; 8:3 (bis), το; 
740295) Pe Aor 53235 (407; (Gal..2: 17; 4:36. Tim.'5:22;-E1 Tim. 3:6. 
In 4 of the foregoing instances of anarthrous ἁμαρτία the noun is used 
indefinitely; so, e.g., II Cor. 11:7: “Or did I commit a sin [ἁμαρτίαν] in 
abasing myself that ye may be exalted?”’ See also II Cor. 5:21; 
I Tim. 5:22; IL Tim. 3:6. The remaining 16 instances of anarthrous 
ἁμαρτία are examples of qualitative usage and will be more fully dis- 
cussed under that head. , 

© 2. Usage in prepositional phrases.—Four instances of ἁμαρτία without 
the article in prepositional phrases occur in the Pauline Epistles. In 
each instance the term is qualitative. The passages are as follows: 
διὰ ἁμαρτίαν (Rom. 8:10); περὶ ἁμαρτίας (Rom. 8:36); ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν 
(Rom. 3:9; Gal. 3:22). In all the above the indefinite sense is mani- 
festly excluded. Had the author desired he might conceivably have 
inserted the article and have used the word in the generic sense. What 
he in fact did was to use the noun in every case in such a way as to throw | 
emphasis upon the character and qualities of sin. In every case it is 
not sin conceived of generically as including every form of evil action, 
nor is it any particular evil act, but sin thought of with reference to its 
evil characteristics that is prominent in the apostle’s mind. This quali- 
tative shade is with difficulty reproduced in the English, vocal stress upon 
the word “sin” being perhaps as near an approximation to the force 
of the original as could be given by a more laborious circumlocution or 
paraphrase. 

Eight instances of ἁμαρτία with the article in prepositional phrases are 
found in the Pauline Epistles, as follows: ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Rom. 6:7, 18, 
22); διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Rom. 5:12); ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις (I Cor. 15:17); 

41 


42 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (I Cor. 15:3; Gal. 1:4); ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (Rom. 7:14). 
In 5 of the foregoing instances, viz., Rom. 5:12; 6:7, 18, 22; 7:14, 
ἁμαρτία is used with the article in the generic sense, in the other 3 (I Cor. 
15:3, 17; Gal. 1:4) it is used restrictively. In so far as the data fur- 
nished by the Pauline Epistles justify an inference the fact would seem 
to be that the apostle makes a clear discrimination in prepositional 
phrases, as elsewhere, between ἁμαρτία regarded as a generic term and 
ἁμαρτία thought of as respects the qualities belonging to that which is 
so named, indicating this discrimination by the omission and insertion 
of the article. In other words, the prepositional phrase offers no excep- 
tion to the rule that nouns with the article are either restrictive or 
generic, while anarthrous nouns are either indefinite or qualitative. It 
may well be that prepositional phrases by their very nature are more 
frequently qualitative than not, though a separate and exhaustive 
investigation would be required to establish that conclusion; but the 
fact here observed is that the lines of demarcation between both the 
nouns with the article and the anarthrous noun and also between 
the two uses of the anarthrous noun obtain in prepositional phrases 
as well as in independent constructions. 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.—There are 
12 instancesiof the qualitative usage of ἁμαρτία aside from those occurring 
in prepositional phrases which remain to be considered. They are 
Rom, 32720; 418; 5213. (8) 6 χὰ, 1650-929, By 23%) Sigal 1497933 
Gal. 2:17. Of these several outstanding examples are selected for more 
detailed discussion. The qualitative character that is so prominent in 
these is, however, discernible in every one of the twelve. 

Rom. 7:7: ὃ νόμος ἁμαρτία. Here Paul repudiates a conceived con- 
sequence of his reasoning by an argumentative question which states 
at once the objector’s assumption and his own protest thereagainst. 
The apostle’s query is not whether the Jewish law is of such a nature that 
from some conceivable point of view it may be looked upon as classifiable 
under the category of sins; it is whether of the law may be affirmed 
those qualities which are characteristic of sin. This distinction is subtle, 
for if a thing is a sin it is evident that it will possess characteristics 
which sin possesses. Conversely, the possession of such characteristics 
- would appear to justify its relegation to the category of sins. Though 
the qualitative and indefinite usages here approximate, they remain ἢ 
distinct, the emphasis lying upon the possession of attributes, ἁμαρτία 
describing by the ascription of ὐεράντς and not designating by assign- 
ment to a class. 


42 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 43 


Rom. 7:13: ἀλλὰ ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἵνα φανῇ ἁμαρτία, κτλ. In this striking- 
passage the generic and qualitative usages appear in conjunction. The 
qualitative emphasis of the anarthrous ἁμαρτία is comparable to ἁμαρτωλός 
in capitals, were such a method of indicating emphasis allowable in 
Greek. The thought is repeated in the next clause by another con- 
struction, the two in this immediate collocation affording an impressive 
example of the adjectival equivalence of qualitative usage. Rearranging 
the second clause in the order of the first, for the purpose of comparison, 
we have ἡ ἁμαρτία, iva φανῇ ἁμαρτία, κτλ. ἡ ἁμαρτία ἵνα γένηται καθ᾽ 
ὑπερβολὴν ἁμαρτωλός, κτλ. Paul’s thought is that under the circumstances 
which he narrates the essential qualities and characteristics of sin 
emerge. Sin now appears as sin, whatever it may have seemed before; 
that is to say, in the anarthrous ἁμαρτία the emphasis in the apostle’s 
thought is not upon sin thought of abstractly or in general, nor is it upon 
any particular sin, but upon the inherently evil characteristics of sin, 
the qualities that make sin sin. 

Rom. 14:23 further illustrates the qualitative usage of ἁμαρτία: 
πᾶν δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἁμαρτία ἐστίν. The statement of the apostle is 
not that whatsoever is not “ οἱ faith” is ἃ sin, that is, may be reckoned as 
one in the catalogue of sins; it is the affirmation that of whatsoever is 
not ‘‘of faith’ sin qualities are to be predicated. 

English idiom commonly, though not always, makes the indefinite 
and the qualitative uses of the word “‘sin”’ identical in form, differentiat- 
ing them by a difference of vocal stress. For example, in enumerating the 
Montanist catalogue of mortal sins one might mention idolatry, fraud, 
denial of the faith, blasphemy, adultery, and fornication. Upon being 
reminded that there were seven, one might say, “ΟἿ, yes, homicide is a 
sin, too.”” Insuch sentences as “‘avarice isa sin,” “theft isa sin,” all that 
is affirmed of these vices is that they are to be classed under the common 
title “‘sin.”’ But in sentences like the following such 15 not the case. 
For example, “the neglect of civic duties is a sin’; “the military unpre- 
paredness of the United Statesis asin”; “the exploitation of the ignorant 
is a sin.” In these sentences the intention of the user is not to affirm 
that the various acts and conditions in question are members of the 
class sin; it is to say that of these acts and conditions qualities may be 
predicated which may also be predicated of sin. Here, again, the dis- 
tinction between the indefinite and the qualitative usages appears to 
vanish in fact but it is preserved in thought, the term “sin” being 
descriptive rather than designative and drawing attention to attributes 
rather than classifying by relegation to a category. 


43 


44 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


4. The Revised Version renderings of dépaptic.—n all the instances 
where ἁμαρτία with the article is used generically the Revised Version, 
οἴη accordance with English idiom, translates without the article. In 
the few examples of the restrictive which occur, which are in every case 
in the plural and modified by a following possessive pronoun, English 
idiom is such that the article naturally does not appear in the translation. 
In the 4 cases where ἁμαρτία is used indefinitely the Revised Version 
rendering is appropriate. In II Cor. 5:21 indefinite and qualitative 
usages occur side by side: τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν 
ἐποίησεν. The first ἁμαρτία is probably indefinite, the intention being 
to affirm the sinlessness of Christ and this by the statement that he did 
not know experientially any single sin. The second ἁμαρτία is clearly 
qualitative. Obviously no single sin is meant. The argument is that 
the Christ who was guiltless of any single sin was regarded and treated 
by God as if possessing the qualities that sin possesses. This is fairly 
rendered by “‘Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf,” 
where the words, “‘no sin’ may be regarded as equivalent to “‘not a sin.” 
In the case of the first ἁμαρτία, however, it is difficult to determine 
whether the intention is indefinite or qualitative. Cf. Eph. 2:12; 
I Thess. 4:13. : 

In all cases where ἁμαρτία without the article is used qualitatively 
the Revised Version renderings are such as not to obscure in the English 
the design of the anarthrous usage in the Greek. In Rom. 8:35 the 
phrase σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας is rendered “sinful flesh,” thus emphasizing the 
qualitative force of the term. In Gal. 2:17 dpa Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος; 
is properly translated “15 Christ a minister of sin ?”’ and by a vocal inflec- 
tion the qualitative force of ἁμαρτία may be made evident in the English. 
Here, too, is an example of a qualitative noun modified by another 
qualitative noun, the whole phrase being qualitative, but the chief 
qualitative contribution being made by the qualitative qualifier. 

In general it may be said that the Revised Version renderings of 
both ἡ ἁμαρτία and ἁμαρτία are in all cases faithful to the Greek and are 
such as to enable the interpreter of the English text to express by vocal 
emphasis the qualitative character of the noun, although that qualitative 
character must first be discovered by a study of the Greek. 


Πίστις 


1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage.—As one of the most 
frequent and important New Testament as well as Pauline terms, this 
word is deserving of special attention. About three-fifths of all the 


44 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 45 


instances occurring in the New Testament are in the Pauline Epistles, 
Romans and Galatians, in keeping with their doctrinal and argumenta- 
tive character, furnishing the largest numbers. Πίστις occurs with 
comparative infrequency in the restrictive sense (cf. I Tim. 1:19; 6:10, 
21; Il Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:13; I Cor. 16:13; IL Cor. 13:5), commonly in 
the generic, occasionally in the qualitative, and probably never in the 
indefinite sense. It occurs most frequently in Paul in prepositional 
phrases, an exhibition of whose usage is appended. Its use in the quali- 
tative sense otherwise than in prepositional phrases is extremely rare. 

2. Usage in prepositional phrases.—The following is a list of the 
passages in the New Testament in which πίστις is used after a preposition: 
With the article: 

ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως (Acts 13:8; I Tim. 8:10). 

διὰ τῆς πίστεως (Rom. 1:12; 3:30, 31; Gal. 3:14, 26; i Eph. δ ΤᾺ ὍΣ 
Col 2: 123 1 Thess. 3:7; Heb. 11:39). 

eis τὴν πίστιν (Gal. 3:23). 

ἐν τῇ πίστει (I Cor. 16:13; 11 Cor. 13:5; Titus 1:13; II Pet. 1:15). 

ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει (Phil. 3:9). ; 

κατὰ τὴν πίστιν (Matt. 9: 20). 

περὶ τῆς πίστεως (Acts 24:34; I Tim. 1: 10). 

περὶ τὴν πίστιν (I Tim. 6:21; IL Tim. 3:8). 

ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως (I Thess. 3:2; IL Thess. 1:4). 

Without the article: 

διὰ πίστεως (Rom. 3:22, 25; IL Cor. 5:7; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8; 
Pads ἀν Tims ἐδ Heb, γεγο 172333. EF Pet. στ δ), 

εἰς πίστιν (Rom. 1:17). | 

ἐκ πίστεως (Rom. 1:17 [bis]; 3:26, 30; 4:16 [bis]; ἀν νου 46, 29. 
10:6; 14:23 [bis]; Gal. 2: τό; 3:7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 22, aes Stes E Timi re. 
Heb. 10:38; Jas. 2:24). 

ἐν πίστει (Gal. 2:20; II Thess. 2:13; I Tim. 1:2, 4; 2:7, 15; 3:13; 

12; II Tim. 1:13; Titus 3:15; Jas. 1:6). 

κατὰ πίστιν (Titus 1:1; Heb. 11:7, 13). 

_ μετὰ πίστεως (Eph. 6:23; I Tim. 1:14). 

χωρὶς πίστεως (Heb. 11:6). 

Upon the basis of these data the following observations may be 
made: 

1. The expression ἐκ πίστεως is almost exclusively a Pauline phrase. 
In Heb. 10:38 it is taken from the Old Testament (Hab. 2:4), and in 
Jas. 2:24 one can almost see the defiant quotation marks on it. -One 
might punctuate it ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ “ex πίστεως’ 


45 


40 . HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


μόνον. Cf. Rom. 3:28. In I Tim. 1:5 & .... πίστεως is a non- 
Pauline usage and has no technical sense. 

2. Though Paul says ἐκ πίστεως so frequently he never says ἐκ τῆς 
πίστεως. 

3. On the other hand διὰ πίστεως and διὰ τῆς πίστεως occur with about 
equal frequency. In the τὸ cases where διὰ τῆς πίστεως occurs 6 are 
clearly restrictive, 2 are possibly so, that is, the article may be equivalent 
to a possessive pronoun. This, while not decisive, may offer presump- 
tive evidence that in the 2 cases in Rom 3:30 the article is restrictive and 
in that case directs the thought to the previous qualitative instances, the 
expression then meaning “the faith” (i.e., the faith we are discussing). 
If this is so the usage of πίστις in prepositional phrases shows no devia- 
tion from the regular usage of nouns in other constructions. 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.—In the 
Pauline Epistles, as has been remarked, anarthrous πίστεως in other than 
prepositional constructions is of relatively infrequent occurrence. It is, 
however, so used in the following 20 instances: Rom. 1:5; 3:27, 28; 
4613312533 143223:'10:26; Ti) ΟΣ, τά ΟΣ ΤΥ 3. (δ, 5.8. 6.. 626) 23; 
Eph. 4:5; I Thess. 5:8; IL Thess. 1:11; 2:13; I Tim. 6:11; II Tim. 
2:22; Titus 2:10. In none of the above can the usage be shown to be 
indefinite. In every case the usage is qualitative. 

As outstanding examples of the qualitative usage of πίστις may be 
quoted (Rom. 3:27): διὰ ποίου νόμου; τῶν ἔργων; οὐχί, ἀλλὰ διὰ νόμου 
πίστεως. Here is an instance of the qualitative noun as the modifier of 
another qualitative noun. It is the quality of πίστις in the νόμος πίστεως 
which in the apostle’s mind makes boasting impossible. The theory of 
justification through meritorious action permits or encourages self- 
gratulation; the law of faith (i.e., the law which calls for faith), upon 
which he insists, excludes it. And it is because of its faith quality that 
the principle for which he contends produces this result. Πίστις is 
therefore strongly qualitative. | 

A similar qualitative emphasis is seen in the use of πίστις in Rom. 
4:13: Οὐ yap διὰ νόμου ἣ ἐπαγγελία τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ. . . . ἀλλὰ διὰ δικαιοσύνης 
πίστεως. Here νόμου is set in contrast with δικαιοσύνης, not with the 
δικαιοσύνης which is the issue of the observance of legal requirements 
but a δικαιοσύνης which is the product of faith. This contrast of nomic 
and pistic righteousness is accomplished by the use of πίστις qualitatively. 
The righteousness alluded to is a faith righteousness, and πίστις is so 
used as to lay stress upon its qualities as faith in distinction from the 
qualities possessed by law. 


46 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 47 


4. The Revised Version renderings of xiorts.—In their translation of 
πίστις used qualitatively the revisers have in general given opportunity 
only for acquiescent criticism. In Rom. 4:16) they have inserted 
the definite article where the qualitative force both of πίστις and the 
rare instance of a proper noun used qualitatively might, perhaps, be 
more clearly expressed by the rendering “by Abrahamic faith.” The 
renderings of πίστις in prepositional phrases in the Revised Version are, 
with one possible exception (Titus 1:1), such as to bring out the quali- 
tative force. The insertion of the article by the revisers gives the term 
in this passage a definiteness which the Greek does not justify. 


Δικαιοσύνη 


1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage-—Out of a total 
of 58 occurrences in the Pauline Epistles 22 have the article and 36 are 
anarthrous. Of the 36 anarthrous instances all but one (Phil. 3:9) 
are qualitative, the usage in no case being clearly indefinite. In Phil. 
3:9, though no article occurs, the sense is definite, the noun preceded by 
a possessive personal pronoun being equivalent to τὴν δικαιοσύνην pov. 
Of the 35 qualitative instances 15 are in prepositional phrases and 
20 are in independent constructions. No instance of δικαιοσύνη with 
the article in a prepositional phrase occurs in the New Testament. 

2. Usage in prepositional phrases.—The prepositional usage of the 
whole New Testament is as follows: διὰ δικαιοσύνης (Rom. 4:13; 5:21; 
8:10; I Pet. 3:14); εἰς. δικαιοσύνην (Rom. 4:3, 5, 9, 22; 6:16; 10:4, το; 
Gal. 3:6; Jas. 2:23); ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ (Luke 1:75; Acts 17:31; Eph. 
4:24; 5:9; IL Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:1; Rev. 19:11); κατὰ δικαιοσύνην 
(Phil. 3:6); περὶ δικαιοσύνης (John 16:8, το; Acts 24:25). In all 
these cases the qualitative force either of the term or of the phrase of 
which the term is a part is obvious. 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional. phrases.—Of the 20 
instances of qualitative usage in constructions other than prepositional 
phrases a few may be cited as typical: 

Rom. 3:5: εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν, τί ἐροῦμεν; 
“But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what 
shall we say ?”’ Here the unrighteousness of man is set in contrast with 
the divine righteousness. Were the sense not qualitative and the inten- 
tion merely contrast we should expect to find δικαιοσύνη used restrictively. 
The absence of the article with both δικαιοσύνη and θεοῦ indicates that 
both are used qualitatively. In the case of neither is there any indefinite- 
ness, as if there were a δικαιοσύνη τοῦ θεοῦ and a δικαιοσύνη τῶν ἀνθρώπων or 


47 


48 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


τῶν ἀγγέλων. The sense of the combined words is divine “righteousness.” 
Similar examples occur in Rom. 1:17; 3:21, 22; 4:6. 

Rom. 6:13: ἀλλὰ παραστήσατε. . . . τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης 
τῷ θεῷ. “Butpresent . . . . your members as instruments of righteous- 
ness unto God.” Here δικαιοσύνη is used as an anarthrous genitive 
modifier. It is clearly qualitative, the intention being to call the 
reader’s attention to the distinctively righteous character of the “ weap- 
ons’’ yielded to God or to the righteous result produced by God’s use of 
them. Conceivably δικαιοσύνη might have had the article and have 
been either generic or restrictive. Being anarthrous its reference is 
clearly qualitative. ν 

Rom. 9:30: Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὅτι ἔθνη τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην 
κατέλαβεν δικαιοσύνην, δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως. ‘What shall we 
say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, 
attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.’ 
In the first of these instances the usage is clearly qualitative, the second 
might be thought to be indefinite, the third restrictive. It is possible, 
however, that all three are qualitative. The passages illustrate the 
difficulty that sometimes attends the identification of qualitative usage. 

II Cor. 5:21: τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, 
ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ. “Him who knew no sin he 
made to be sin on our behalf: that we might become the righteousness 
of God in him.” God’s imputation of sin to Christ allows the imputa- 
tion of divine righteousness to us. Both sin (5:21) and righteousness 
are used qualitatively. Cf. note on ἁμαρτία. 

I Cor. 11:15: οὐ μέγα οὖν εἰ καὶ οἱ διάκονοι αὐτοῦ μετασχηματίζονται 
ὡς διάκονοι δικαιοσύνης. “It is no great thing, therefore, if his ministers 
also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness.” The qualitative 
sense of δικαιοσύνη is very clear; the διάκονοι Σατανᾶ are naturally 
thought of as διάκονοι ἀδικίας but are apparently transformed into beings 
whose labors are directed toward the production of righteousness. 

4. The Revised Version renderings of Sixacootvy.—In the translation 
of this word when used qualitatively in prepositional phrases the Revised 
Version wrongly inserts the article in Rom 4:13; II Pet. 1:1. In 
independent constructions (Rom. 1:17) it inserts the indefinite article 
as if God’s righteousness were conceived of by the apostle as of several 
sorts. Similarly in Rom. 3:5 the insertion of the definite article empha- 
sizes the class to which the righteousness belongs, which in the Greek is 


τ Note the qualitative use of the gentilic noun ἔθνη and its mistranslation in the 
English. How much more forceful had the article been omitted in the translation! 


- 48 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 49 


expressed by the precedence of θεοῦ, but weakens the implication of 
quality which the omission of the article with δικαιοσύνη indicates. In 
Rom. 3:21 it exhibits a striking negligence, ignoring again the qualita- 
tive character of the term and making it indefinite; in 4:3, 5, 6, 9, 
however, the qualitative character is adequately rendered; in II Cor. 
5:21 it inserts the definite article, thus modifying the qualitative force 
appreciably; in Rom. 4:22, 5:21, and 8:10, on the other hand, the 
qualitative effect is preserved. In Rom. 9:30 a notable example of the 
collocation of the definite and qualitative usages occurs and the Revised 
Version renders both appropriately. Other instances of the correct 
rendering of δικαιοσύνη used qualitatively could be adduced. In its 
translation the revisers have not been uniform in their renderings, 
affording opportunity for criticism in some cases but oftener adhering 
to the spirit of the Greek. In many of these, it must be admitted, no 
special discernment was required, and a literal translation of the Greek | 
was both the most obvious rendering and at the same time sufficient 
expression of the qualitative effect in English. 


*EAris 


1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage—EAris occurs 
36 times in Paul, 15 times with the article and 21 times without it. 

When used with the article it is in the following 6 cases generic: 
Rom. 5:5; 8:24; 12:12; 15:4, 13 (bis). In the following 9 cases it is 
restrictive: II Cor. 1:6; Eph. 1:18; Phil. 1:20; Col. 1:5, 23, 27; 
I Thess. 1:3; I Tim. 1:1; Titus 2:13. As an example of the generic 
usage may be cited Rom. 5:5: “And hope [ἡ ἐλπίς] maketh not ashamed.” 
As an example of the restrictive usage may be cited Col. 1:5: ‘‘ because 
of the hope which is laid up for you in the heavens.” 

When used without the article ἐλπίς is in the following 3 cases probably 
indefinite: Rom. 8: 246; II Cor. 3:12 (see, however, Matt. 8: 10, τοσαύτην 
πίστιν); Eph. 4:4. In the following 18 cases it is qualitative: Rom. 4:18 
(bis); 5:2, 4; 8:20, 246; I Cor. 9: 10 (bts); 13:13; II Cor. 10:15; Gal. 5:5; 
Eph. 2:12 (cf. IL Cor. 5:21, where ἁμαρτία was reckoned indefinite) ; 
I Thess. 2:19; 4:13; 5:8; IL Thess. 2:16; Titus 1:2; 3:7. Asan example 
of the indefinite usage may be cited Eph. 4:4: ‘“‘There is one body 
and one spirit, even as ye also were called in one hope of your calling.” 
Examples of the qualitative usage will be discussed under that head. 

2. Usage in prepositional phrases.— Edis occurs 13 times in preposi- — 
tional phrases in the Pauline writings, in 4 cases with the article and in 
9 cases without it. 


49 


50 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


When used with the article it is in one case generic, viz., Rom. 15:13: 
“That ye may abound in hope”’ (ἐν τῇ ἐλπίδι). In the following three 
cases it.is restrictive: Phil. 1:20; Col. 1:4, 23. As an example of the 
restrictive usage may be cited Col. 1:23: “and not moved away from the 
hope [ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος] of the gospel which ye heard.” In one instance 
anarthrous ἐλπίς in a prepositional phrase is used indefinitely, viz., 
Eph. 4:4: ‘There is one body and one spirit, even as ye were called in 
one hope [ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι] of your calling.” 

In the following 8 instances ἐλπίς without the article is used qualita- 
tively: Rom. 4:18 (bis); 5:2; 8:20; I Cor. 9:10 (bts); Titus 1:2; 3:7. 

The following conspectus exhibits the complete prepositional usage 
of ἐλπίς in the Pauline Epistles: 

With the article: 

ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος (Col. 1:23). 

διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα (Col. τ: 5). 

ἐν τῇ ἐλπίδι (Rom. 15:13). 

κατὰ... .. τὴν ἐλπίδα (Phil. 1:20). 

Without the article: 

ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι (Eph. 4:4). 

ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι (Rom. 4:18; 5:2; 8:20; I Cor. 9:10 [bis]; Titus 1:2). 

κατ᾽ ἐλπίδα (Titus 3:7). 

map’ ἐλπίδα (Rom. 4:18). 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.—EAnis, 
when anarthrous, is qualitative in 18 out of 21 instances. This is not to 
deny, as has been previously remarked, that the term, while thus qualita- 
tive, may have a definite reference. InI Thess. 4:13, for example, καθὼς 
καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα doubtless refers especially to the Christian 
hope of a future life, while the usage is such as to throw stress upon the 
characteristics of that hope rather than upon its identity. In Rom. 8:24 
a concurrence of the generic, the indefinite, and the qualitative uses of 
ἐλπίς is found: τῇ yap ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν: ἐλπὶς δὲ βλεπομένη οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπίς. 
Here the first ἐλπίς is generic, the second indefinite, and the third qualita- 
tive. The writer’s thought is that a hope once realized ceases to have 
the character of hope but takes on that of experience. While this is 
perhaps the most striking instance of the qualitative usage of ἐλπίς, 
the same qualitative intent is discernible in all the instances cited. 

4. The Revised Version renderings of ἐλπίς.---ΤῊς translation of 
ἐλπίς used qualitatively is almost without exception such as to offer 
no occasion for demurring criticism. In Gal. 5:5 and I Thess. 5:8 the 
insertion of the article tends to obscure the qualitative character of the 


50 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES . 51 


Greek expression. At the same time it is difficult, if not impossible, to 
preserve in English both the definite and the qualitative tinges which are 
present in the phrases ἐλπὶς δικαιοσύνης and ἐλπὶς σωτηρίας. If in the 
translation the one is lost the other at least is preserved. The simple 
omission of the article in these passages would have made passable 
English and would have allowed the qualitative emphasis to be felt in 
the translation. Notable examples of felicitous réndering of the qualita- 
tive usage may be observed in Rom. 8:24 and II Thess. 2:16. 


Εὐαγγέλιον 


1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage.—It is sometimes 
remarked that this term is a favorite with Paul. Of its 75 occurrences 
in the New Testament 59 are in the Pauline Epistles. It is in all but 
3 cases preceded by the article, and when so preceded is always restric- 
tive. Of the 3 examples of anarthrous usage (Rom. 1:1; IL Cor. 11:4; 
Gal. 1:6) all are qualitative. 

2. Usage in prepositional phrases ——A complete exhibit of the usage 
of εὐαγγέλιον in the whole New Testament is as follows: 

With the article: 

διὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (I Cor. 9:23). 

διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (I Cor. 4:15; Eph. 3:16; IL Thess. 2:14; IL Tim. 
‘I:10). 

εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον (II Cor. 2:12; 9:13; Phil. 1:5; 2:22). 

ἐκ Tov εὐαγγελίου (I Cor. 9:14). 

ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ (Mark 1:15; Rom. 1:9; I Cor. 9:18; II Cor. 8:18; 
10:14; Phil. 4:3; I Thess. 3:2). 

ἕνεκεν. . . . TOU εὐαγγελίου (Mark 8:35; 10:20). 

κατὰ... .. τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (Rom. 11:28; 16:25; I Tim. 1:11; 
II Tim. 2:8). 

Without the article: 

εἰς εὐαγγέλιον (Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:6). 

In Rom. 1:1 in the phrase ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ there is a 
notable example of qualitative usage. There is} naturally, no indefinite- 
ness, as if the apostle thought of God as the author of several gospels. 
Nor is there here any implicit contrast, as if there were, e.g., an εὐαγγέλιον 
θεοῦ and an εὐαγγέλιον διαβόλου or Σατανᾶ. It is not “ἃ gospel of divine 
origin’’ that Paul has in mind, since he recognizes no other sort. Nor: 
is it “‘the gospel of God,” as if the article were prefixed according to his 
usual formula, though the definiteness of the reference is undeniable, 
nor “God’s gospel,” as εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ might literally be rendered. Paul 


51 


52 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


declares himself set apart to “good news” simply, with θεοῦ added as a 
qualifying nominal adjective. He is, then, ‘‘separated unto divine 
good news.” The distinction between εὐαγγέλιον here and the prevail- 
ing τὸ εὐαγγέλιον elsewhere is quite as clear as that between “ministry”’ 
and ‘‘the ministry” or “service”? and “the service.”” Obviously one 
might be spoken of as ordained to ‘ministry’? who remained a layman, 
or as faithful in “service” who had no connection with any department 
of the state. . 

In Gal. 1:6 the term occurs in the prepositional phrase εἰς ἕτερον 
εὐαγγέλιον. That εὐαγγέλιον is not thought of indefinitely is shown by 
the immediately following words, ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος To Paul there is 
only one “gospel,” though that gospel may be perverted and presented 
in a debased form. The term cannot be indefinite because there is no 
class “gospels” in Paul’s mind of which it can be a member. It is 
therefore qualitative. 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.——In one 
passage anarthrous εὐαγγέλιον occurs in an independent construction, 
viz., II Cor. 11:4. Here by the same argument adduced in the case of 
Gal. 1:6 it is shown to be qualitative. The fact that the apostle sets up 
no class ‘‘gospels” of which the εὐαγγέλιον ἕτερον can be a member 
shows that he uses the word qualitatively. 

4. The Revised Version renderings of εὐαγγέλιον.---ΤῊς Revised 
Version rendering of qualitative εὐαγγέλιον in Rom. 1:1, “separated unto 
the gospel of God,” ignores the qualitative force of εὐαγγέλιον and renders 
it as if it were the customary τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, In 11 Cor. 11:4 and Gal. 
1:6 the rendering ‘‘a different gospel,”’ though it may imply an indefinite- 
ness which was not present to Paul’s mind, is perhaps as close an approach 
to the qualitative force of the Greek as is possible in English. 


Θέλημα 


1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage-—This term occurs 
24 times in the Pauline Epistles, being in 13 instances restrictive and 
in 11 instances qualitative. There are some evidences that this word 
was employed without the article as a cult term for that which was 
conceived of as divinely preordained or less strictly for the divine desire. 
The passages in which such a meaning is apparent are Matt. 18:14; 
I Cor. 16:12. Others less convincing are I Thess. 4:3; 5:18; I Pet. 4:2. 
Apparently the early Christians could speak of what they regarded as 
divinely willed not only as “the will of God’? (Rom. 12:2) or “God’s 
will’? (I Thess. 5:18) or ‘‘the will’? (Rom. 2:18), but even more simply, 


52 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 53 


as “will” (I Cor. 16:12), and predicate that this or that was not θέλημα, 
meaning thereby that it was not divinely purposed (and therefore did 
not come to pass). Parallels are to be found in English in the usage of 
such words as “destiny,” “providence,” “kismet,” “fate,” “‘taboo,”’ in 
anarthrous construction. 

2. Usage in prepositional phrases.—The prepositional usage of θέλημα 
in the whole New Testament is as follows: 

With the article: 

ἐν ej θελήματι Tod θεοῦ fiona: 1:10). 

κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (Gal. 1:4; I Pet. 4: 19). 
Without the article: 

διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ (Rom. 15:32; I Cor. 1:1; IL Cor. 1:1; 8:5; 
Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; IL Tim. 1:1). 

ἐν θελήματι τοῦ θεοῦ (Col. 4:12). 

The foregoing data show that the use of διά with θέλημα is in the 
New Testament limited to Paul, that in this construction he always omits 
the article, though he employs it with ἐν in Rom. 1:10 and with κατά in 
Gal. 1:4. In all the instances of θέλημα with διά the noun is qualitative, 
as it is also with év in Col. 4:12. 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.—Aside from 
prepositional constructions 3 instances of anarthrous θέλημα occur. 
Each may be quoted and discussed: 

I Cor. 16:12: Περὶ δὲ ᾿Απολλὼ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, πολλὰ ΠΛΌΟΝ αὐτὸν 
ἵνα ἔλθῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν: καὶ πάντως οὐκ ἣν θέλημα ἵνα νῦν ἔλθῃ, 
ἐλεύσεται δὲ ὅταν εὐκαιρήσῃ. “Βυΐ as touching Apollos the brother, I 
besought him much to come unto you with the brethren: and it was 
not at all God’s will that he should come now [margin]; , but he will 
come when he shall have opportunity.”. This is a striking instance 
of the peculiar usage of θέλημα above referred to (a parallel occurs in 
Matt. 18:14). Apollos delays his journey, awaiting the time when the 
divine will shall be propitious. For him to depart to Corinth at the 
time of Paul’s writing has in some way been determined to be not θέλημα, 
that is, divinely willed. 

I Thess. 4:3: Τοῦτο yap ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ... . ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς 
ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας. ‘This is the will of God . . . . that ye abstain from 
fornication.” : 

Also I Thess. 5:18: τοῦτο yap θέλημα θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς. 
“For this is the will of God in Christ Jesus to youward.” 

ΑΒ in the first instance'a given event was recognized not to be ata 
given time divinely willed, in the latter two a given course of action is 


53 


54 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


declared θέλημα, i.e., a thing which God wills. In the first the connota- 
tion of the term is evidently such that when used alone it carries a 
significance equivalent to that which it bears when used, as in the other 
two instances, with a qualifying tod θεοῦ. In all three the qualitative 
sense is pronounced. 

4. The Revised Version renderings of 9éAnuo.—In I Cor. 16:12 the 
Revised Version refers the term to Apollos and translates: “It was not 
at all his will,’ with “‘God’s will” as an alternative reading in the 
margin. Here the marginal paraphrase is obviously the truer rendering, 
approximating the sense of the Greek, while not precisely representing 
its usage. 

InI Thess. 4:3 and 5:18 the revisers have inserted the definite article, 
translating “‘the will of God,” a rendering which, while correctly repre- 
senting the definite reference of the phrase, makes the qualitative sense 
of ‘‘will’’ discoverable only by a consultation of the Greek. 


Ἅγιος 


1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage-—As a designation 
for Christians this term occurs 40 times in the Pauline writings, com- 
monly in the plural, there being only 1 instance of its use in the 
singular (Phil. 4:21). In the 27 occurrences in independent construc- 
tions it is used 22 times with and 5 times (Rom. 2:7; I Cor. 1:2; Eph. 
3:8; 5:3; I Tim. 5:10) without thearticle. In the 13 occurrences of the 
word in prepositional phrases only once (Rom. 8:27) is it anarthrous. 

2. Usage in prepositional phrases.—A full exhibit of the prepositional | 
usage of this term used as an appellative is as follows: 

With the article: 

eis τοὺς ἁγίους (I Cor. 16:1; II Cor. 8:4; 9:1; Eph. 1:15; Col. 1:4; 
Philem. 5). 

ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις (Eph. 1:18; I Thess. 1:10). 

ἐπὶ τῶν ἄγων (I Cor. 6:1). 

μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων (I Thess. 3:13). 

περὶ Tov ἁγίων (Eph. 6:18). 

σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις (Eph. 3° 18). 

Without the article: 

ὑπὲρ ἁγίων (Rom. 8:27). 

Inasmuch as the only instance of anarthrous ἅγιος in a prepositional 
phrase is in Rom. 8:27, where the reference may be to things holy (cf. 
Matt. 7:6) rather than to Christians as such, the evidence for the 
‘qualitative usage of the term in prepositional phrases is indecisive. 


54 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 55 


3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases—The 5 
instances of anarthrous ἅγιος cited above are sufficient to show that while 
not common the usage of the term in a qualitative sense is definitely 
present in the Pauline Epistles. In 2 cases (Eph. 3:8 and I Tim. 5:10) 
the usage is indefinite, in the other 3 clearly qualitative. The 3 may be 
quoted and discussed: Rom. 1:7: πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ρώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, 
κλητοῖς ἁγίοις. I Cor. 1:1-2issimilar: Παῦλος... τῇ ἐκκλησᾳ... .. 
ἐν Κορίνθῳ, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις. Eph. 5:3: μηδὲ ᾿ 
ὀνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν, καθὼς πρέπει ἁγίοις. In all 3 of these instances the 
omission of the article signifies the author’s intention to emphasize the 
quality of saintliness, regarded as the peculiar property of Christians. 
They are, as we should say by italicization, saints. Holiness is regarded 
as the Christian’s distinguishing mark, and to be holy is his appointed 
task. It is to the specific character of life to which they have been 
called that the apostle in the first 2 instances directs attention by the 
omission of the article. In Eph. 5:3 the term is likewise strictly quali- 
tative. To saints sinful behavior is incongruous, that is, it is incom- 
patible with the distinguishing Christian quality of saintliness. 

4. The Revised Version renderings of dyws.—In I Tim. 5:10 the 
insertion of the article before the indefinite ἁγίων is unwarranted. 
In Rom. 8:27, κατὰ θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων, where, even with the 
customary understanding of the term, the usage of ἁγίοις is clearly 
qualitative, the insertion of the definite article in the Revised Version 
fails in faithfulness to the Greek. 

In the other instances in which ἁγίοις is clearly qualitative, the 
Revised Version translates by an anarthrous English equivalent and 
the qualitative effect is preserved. 


᾿Αδελφός 


1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage——In the Pauline 
Epistles ἀδελφός often occurs in the vocative plural in affectionate or 
expostulatory address.‘ In 2 instances the singular is so used (Philem. 
7,20). Very frequently the plural with the article is so used as a desig- 
nation for the Christians of a given place. In Rom. 9:3 it is used to 
denote the Jewish nation. It is sometimes used indefinitely, as in I Cor. 
7:12. In Rom. 14:10, 13, 15, 21 there are examples of ἀδελφός used 
generically. In I Cor. 9:5 it is used in its literal sense. A few instances 
of the qualitative usage occur. 


τ Such instances have been reckoned as qualitative. 
55 


56 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


2. Usage in prepositional phrases.—The following is an exhibit οἵ 
the usage of ἀδελφός in prepositional phrases in the Pauline Epistles: 
With the article: 

ἀνὰ μέσον Tov ἀδελφοῦ (I Cor. 6:5). 

eis τοὺς ἀδελφούς (I Cor. 8:12; I Thess. 4:10). 

ἐν τῷ ἀδελφῴ (I Cor. 7:14). 

pera THY ἀδελφῶν (1 Cor. 16:11, 12). 
σὺν Ὀνησίμῳ. .. . ἀδελφῷ (Col. 4:9). 
ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν (Rom. 9:3). 

Without the article: 

ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ (II Thess. 3:6). 

ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς (Rom. 8: 20). 

In 8 cases ἀδελφός occurs with the article in prepositional phrases. 
In 6 of these it is used restrictively; in I Cor. 6:5 and 7:14 it is used 
generically. Anarthrous ἀδελφός occurs twice in prepositional phrases, 
being used once indefinitely and once in what is possibly a qualitative 
sense, viz., Rom. 8:29: ὅτι ods προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς 
εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. 
‘For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to 
the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many 
brethren.” Here is an example of the indefinite and qualitative occa- 
sionally so shading into each other that it is difficult to say which usage 
was in the writer’s mind. 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.— Ἀδελφός 
occurs occasionally in a distinctly qualitative sense. The following 
passage are examples: 

I Cor. 5:11: νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν. .. . ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος 
ἢ πόρνος... .. τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν. “ Now I write [margin] unto 
you, .... if any man that is named a brother be ἃ fornicator,.... 
with such a one no, not to eat.” 

I Cor. 6:6: ἀλλὰ ἀδελφὸς μετὰ ἀδελφοῦ κρίνεται. “ But brother goeth 
to law with brother.” 

I Cor. 6:8 is-an especially noteworthy example of qualitative usage: 
ἀλλὰ ὑμεῖς ἀδικεῖτε Kal ἀποστερεῖτε, καὶ τοῦτο ἀδελφούς. ‘Nay, but ye 
yourselves wrong and defraud, and that your brethren.” 

I Tim. 5:1: ἀλλὰ παρακάλει... νεωτέρους ὡς ἀδελφούς. “But 
exhort . . . . the younger men as brethren.” 

4. The Revised Version renderings of ἀδελφός.---Τὴ 3 of the foregoing . 
instances of qualitative usage (viz., Rom. 8:29; I Cor. 6:6; I Tim. 5:1) 
the renderings of the Revised Version faithfully reflect the Greek. In 

56 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 57 


2 passages (I Cor. 5:11; 6:8) the translation is such as to obscure the 
qualitative force of the original. By the insertion of “δ᾽ before 
“brother” in I Cor. 5:11 the qualitative intention is impaired and the 
force of the sentence weakened. The person present to the apostle’s 
mind is thought of not merely as ‘‘a brother,” that is, a fellow-member 
of the Christian society, but as one who bears the Christian appellative 
“brother.” The difference is one of emphasis. The offender is in 
either case within the Christian circle, but the apostle chooses to refer 
to him as one who bears the title “brother.” 

Similarly in I Cor. 6:8 the insertion of the pronoun ‘“‘your”’ before 
“brethren” detracts from the force of the apostle’s indignant protest. 
To his mind the incongruity of dishonesty on the part of the Corinthian 
Christians is aggravated by the fact that the dishonesty is practiced 
against members of the Christian brotherhood. The insertion of the 
pronoun contributes to smoothness but weakens the qualitative force. 


KAnros 


1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage.—This term occurs 
11 times in the New Testament, 7 of the instances being in Paul. It 
is used both with and without the article. In Matt. 20:16 and 22:14, 
where it is used in a play on words with ἐκλελτός, its meaning is quite 
different from that which it has elsewhere in the New Testament. Ordi- 
narily the κλητοί are the Christians, thought of simply as the fortunate 
objects of the divine invitation to become partakers of salvation, or 
with respect to some moral implication of their calling, or, in the case of 
Paul himself, with regard to his divine appointment to apostleship. 
Though the word may in every instance be regarded as an adjective, and 
is apparently so regarded by Thayer e¢ al., it seems possible that in some 
passages at least it is an adjective used as a noun and with a qualitative 
color. In Jude τ and Rev. 17:14, indeed, the article appears and the 
nominal force is evident. The present writer ventures the hypothesis 
that κλητός was a cult term in use among the Christians and designated 
one as a member of the cult, quite as ἅγιος and ἀδελφός did. It may 
have been imported from the terminology of the Greek mysteries. 

2. Usage in prepositional phrases—No instances of prepositional 
usage occur. ἜΤΗ 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.—The follow- 
ing is the only clear example of the qualitative usage of κλητός: Rom 1:6: 
ἐστὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Here, while the apostle directs 
his readers’ attention to the fact that they belong to a class, his intention 

57 


58 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


is evidently not to lay stress on membership in the class but upon the 
nature of the relationship thereby established. Still less do they consti- 
tute the class; they are not, then, thought of as “the called of Jesus 
Christ”’ but rather “called men of Jesus Christ’ or “‘Jesus Christ’s called.” 

4. The Revised Version renderings of xXyrés.—In the instance just 
discussed the Revised Version takes κλητός in its usual verbal sense and 
reads “called to be Jesus Christ’s,” a rendering in which, while the 
qualitative intention is not wholly obscured, the emphasis is transferred 
to the title Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is made predicative and telic instead of 
possessive. 

᾿Απόστολος 

1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage ——Out of a total of 
34 occurrences in the Pauline Epistles 12 are instances of the restrictive 
usage, one (II Cor. 12:12) of the generic, and 21 of the qualitative. In 
2 cases (II Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25) ἀπόστολος is used in its ordinary, non- 
official sense, ‘‘ messenger.’’ 

2. Usage in prepositional ῥἤγαδο5.---- Ἀπόστολος occurs twice after a 
preposition, in both cases with the article and in the restrictive sense, 
viz., ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (Rom. 16:7); πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους (Gal. 1:17). 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.—In 9g of the 
13 epistles the address contains a reference to Paul as ἀπόστολος. In 
If Cor., Gal., Eph., Col., I Tim. and 11 Tim., and Titus the abrupt 
and strikingly qualitative Παῦλος ἀπόστολος is used. In Rom. 1:1 and 
I Cor. 1:1 the distinctively Pauline phrase κλητὸς ἀπόστολος is used. 
Upon the hypothesis that is put forward under the discussion of κλητός 
the conjunction of the two words may designate Paul as first a member 
of the Christian cult and secondly as occupying the position therein 
which the appellative ἀπόστολος was understood to denote. 

There remain 12 other instances of ἀπόστολος used qualitatively, 
the more outstanding of which may be discussed: 

Rom. 11:13: εἰμὲ ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος. “1 am an apostle of 
Gentiles.” In this passage both nouns are qualitative, the emphasis 
lying upon ἐθνῶν. Paul affirms that to him belongs apostleship, and 
that of a specific character. An English rendering which exactly 
equates the Greek is “I am apostle of Gentiles.” While the term 
ἀπόστολος is obviously restrictive, designating him as member of a class, 
the force of the term here is primarily qualitative, emphasizing the 
apostolic character of his relationship to the Gentiles. 


1 For a discussion of this term see Professor Ernest Ὁ. Burton, ‘‘The Office of 
Apostle in the Early Church,” American Journal of Theology, October, 1912, pp. 561-88. 


58 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 59 


I-Cor. 9:1: οὐκ eit ἀπόστολος; “Am I not an apostle?’”’ Here 
again Paul lays emphasis upon the character of his office as consonant 
with freedom in personal action and relationships, while at the same time 
indicating the class to which he belongs. 

I Cor. 9:2: εἰ ἄλλοις οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος, ἀλλά ye ὑμῖν εἰμί, “Tf to 
others I am not an apostle, yet at least lam to γου.᾽ From the context 
the purport of this statement appears to be that while others may repudi- 
ate his claim to apostleship he may expect the Corinthians to recognize 
its validity. The qualitative force may be brought out in English by 
printing the word with quotation marks: ‘If to others I am not ‘apostle’ 
Iam at least to you.” 

I Cor. 15:9: ᾿Εγὼ γάρ εἰμι ὃ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων, ὃς οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς 
καλεῖσθαι ἀπόστολος. ‘‘For I am the least of the apostles, that am not 
meet to be called an apostle.”’ Here again the term is qualitative, Paul 
expressing his feeling that his previous persecution of the Christians 
made him unfit to receive from them subsequently the honorable title 
“apostle.” 

4. The Revised Version renderings of ἀπόστολος.---ΤῊς Revised Version 
habitually translates ἀπόστολος with the indefinite article, a practice 
which, though weakening the qualitative effect, is in keeping with Eng- 
lish idiom. Rom. 11:13 is a typical example.. The qualitative force 
of ἐθνῶν remains unimpaired in the translation, but ἀπόστολος is stripped 
of its qualitative character, the modifying phrase “οἱ Gentiles” con- 
tributing to this effect. In English it is common to prefix the indefinite 
article to a noun used qualitatively when the noun stands alone (see 
p. 8). When, however, a modifying phrase is added as here, and in 
translation the passage is made to read ‘“‘an apostle of Gentiles,” the 
qualitative character of the appellative disappears and it becomes merely 
a class designation. Apart from reference to the underlying Greek the 
reader of the English text is not made aware of the qualitative character 
of ἀπόστολος as he is of ἐθνῶν. In all the epistolary addresses where 
anarthrous ἀπόστολος occurs the bold qualitative is similarly reduced by 
the prefixing of the indefinite article: In 4 passages (I Cor. 12:28, 29; 
II Cor. 11:13; I Thess. 2:6) ἀπόστολος is rendered by its anarthrous 
English equivalent and the qualitative force is thereby adequately 

expressed. 
Ἐπίσκοπος 

1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage-—The infrequency 
of this term in the New Testament, even in its later portions, is in strik- 
ing contrast to its prominence in subsequent church history. It occurs 


59 


600 ᾿ HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


5 times in the whole New Testament, 3 times in the Pauline Epistles. 
In Phil. 1:1 it is the object of a preposition. In both the other instances 
(I Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7) the article precedes and the noun is generic. 

2. Usage in prepositional phrases—Two instances of érioxoros in 
prepositional phrases occur in the New Testament, viz., with the article, 
ἐπὶ τὸν... . . ἐπίσκοπον (I Pet. 2:25); without the article, σὺν ἐπισκόποις 
(Phil. τ: τὴ. In Phil. 1:1 the apostle addresses the saints at Philippi 
σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις. Both nouns are used qualitatively and 
may be represented in English by the rendering “bishops and deacons 
included.” 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.—No instance 
of such usage occurs. 

4. The Revised Version renderings of éxioxoros.—In the Philippians 
passage the Revised Version inserts the article, perhaps assuming that 
the definitive force of the article in τοῖς ἁγίοις and τοῖς οὖσιν carries 
over to the prepositional phrase or else feeling that smoothness of trans- 
lation requires its presence. Thereby also the ambiguity to which a 
literal translation would be subject (as if the apostle were limiting his 
address to those Philippian Christians who possessed these officers) is 
avoided. Nevertheless the careful New Testament student is in duty 
bound to observe the absence of the article at this point and to consider 
whether its presence in the English translation is justified. 

Σωτήρ 

1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage-—As a common term 
in the cult of the emperor? this word acquires a significance and interest 
out of proportion to the frequency of its occurrence in the New Testa- 
ment. It occurs not infrequently in the LXX and is applied both to 
God and men, designating in the latter case those judges who rescued 
Israel from oppression (Judg. 3:9, 13; Neh. 12:3). In the New Testa- 
ment it is applied only to God and Jesus Christ. Its precise significance 
in the New Testament is a topic for an investigation of a different 
nature from the one in hand and has been treated at length by several 
authorities.? Σωτήρ occurs in the whole New Testament 24 times. In 8 
of these it is coupled with θεός as a title for God. In all other instances 

1 See Case, Evolution of Early Christianity, chapter vii, ‘‘The Religious Signifi- 
cance of Emperor Worship” and literature there cited, especially Heinen, Zur Be- 


griindung des rémischen Kaiserkultus: chronologische Ubersicht von 43 v. bis 14 n. Chr.; 
also H. F. Burton, ‘‘The Worship of the Roman Emperors,” Biblical World, August, 


1012, pp. 80-91. 
2E.g., Paul Wendland, ZNTW, V (1904), 335 fi. 
60 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 61 


it is applied to Jesus, usually with concomitant terms (i.e., κύριος 
[II Pet. 3:18]; vids [1 John 4:14]; Ἰησοῦς Χριστός [II Tim. 1:10]) and 
commonly with the article. It occurs with comparative infrequency in 
the Pauline literature, being found only twice (Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20) 
outside the Pastoral Epistles. In these it occurs τὸ times, in 6 being 
applied to God and in 4 to Jesus. Its importance as bearing upon the 
authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is obvious. 

2. Usage in prepositional phrases.—The usage in the whole New 
Testament is as follows: 

With the article: 

ἀπὸ. . .. τοῦ σωτῆρος (Titus 1:4). 

διὰ. . . . τοῦ σωτῆρος (Titus 3:6). 

ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος (I Tim. 2:3). 

ἐπὶ τῷ σωτῆρι (Luke 1:47). 

No instance of anarthrous σωτήρ in a prepositional phrase occurs. 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.—There are 3 
instances of qualitative σωτήρ in the Pauline Epistles, the Pastorals being 
included, as follows: 

Eph. 5:23: καὶ ὃ χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος. 
**As Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of 
the body.” : 

I Tim. 1:1: Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆ- 
ρος ἡμῶν. ‘Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the command- 
ment of God our Saviour.’”? | 

I Tim. 4:10: ὅς ἐστιν σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, μάλιστα πιστῶν. 
“Who is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe.” 

In each of the foregoing instances of anarthrous σωτήρ its reference 
is definite, but it is used qualitatively to ascribe the intrinsic characteristic 
of saviourhood to God or to Christ, rather than to designate either 
restrictively as “the Saviour.” 

4. The Revised Version renderings of owrnp—In Eph. 5:23 the 
Revised Version wrongly translates θεός with the definite article, thus 
affording one of those instances, comparatively rare, where an anar- 
throus Greek noun is rendered in English by a noun preceded by the 
definite article. In the rendering of I Tim. 4:10 occurs another instance 
of the insertion of the definite article in translation before a noun anar- 
throus in the Greek. This sharpening of the qualitative into the 


t Note the mistranslation of the qualitative κεφαλή, properly rendered in Eph. 1: 22. 


2 Note also the mistranslation of κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν. Cf. also Rom. 16:26; Titus 1:3. 
It is correctly rendered in I Cor. 7:6; II Cor. 8:8. 


61 


62 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


restrictive usage is without justification. In Phil. 3:20, where σωτήρ is 
probably indefinite, the Revised Version appropriately translates “a 
Saviour.” 

Κύριος 

1. Statistical and comparative statement of πδαρο.---Ναχίὶ to θεός 
this appellative is probably the most frequent in the New Testament, 
occurring 725 times, 280 of these being in Paul. It is used both with and 
without the article. The prevailing usage is to employ the article, but 
in 108 instances κύριος is anarthrous. Sixteen of these are in Old Testa- 
ment quotations, where the reference is to God; 64 are in prepositional 
phrases; 28 are in independent constructions other than in passages 
quoted from the Old Testament. In nearly all these last κύριος is used 
qualitatively, but see I Cor. 8:5, where it is used indefinitely. 

2. Usage in prepositional phrases.—Kupws occurs frequently in prepo- 
sitional phrases and with striking preference for the anarthrous form. 
Of the 64 occurrences in prepositional phrases only 6 are preceded by the 
article. More than half, then, of the instances of anarthrous κύριος are 
in prepositional phrases, and in prepositional phrases κύριος is in 90 
per cent of the instances anarthrous. A full exhibition of the Pauline 
prepositional usage of κύριος is as follows: 

With the article: 

ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (I Cor. 11:23). 

διὰ τοῦ κυρίου (Rom. 5:1, 11; 15:30; I Thess. 4:2; 5:9). 
Without the article: 

ἀπὸ κυρίου (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:3; Π Cor: 1:2; 3128; Gal ΜΈΛΗ 
Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; Col. 3:24; II Thess. 1:1; Philem. 3). 

ἐν κυρίῳ (Rom. 14:14; 16:2, 8, 11, 12 [bis], 13, 22; I Cor. 1:31; 
4:17; 7222, 20]. 0:1, 2; 12:11; 15:58; 16:19; IL Cor. 2:12; 10:27; 
Eph. 2:21; 4:1, 17; 5:8; 6:1, 10, 21; Phil. 1:14; 2:19, 24, 29; 3:1; 
4:1, 2, ἃ, τὸ; -(ο0].. 3218, 20; 4:7, 17;5 Ὁ Dhess, 1: 1;5=3:8; ait; Seas, 
II Thess. 3:4, 12; Philem. 16, 20). 

ἐνώπιον κυρίου (IT Cor. 8:21). 

ἐπὶ κύριον (I Tim. 5:5 [margin]). 

παρὰ κυρίου (Eph. 6:8). 

πρὸς κύριον (II Cor. 3:16). 

σὺν κυρίῳ (I Thess. 4:17). 

ὑπὸ κυρίου (1 Cor. 7:25; IL Thess. 2:13). 

τ It is noteworthy that of the.280 instances in Paul only 7 are used in a sense other 


than as referring to God or to Christ, viz., Rom. 14:4; I Cor. 8:5; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 6:5, 
9; COL..37225 -4:i: 


62 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 63 


Of the 6 instances where κύριος with the article is the object of a 
preposition the latter is never ἐν and the relation is measurably, at least, 
objective, and the person referred to individualized. In actual usage év 
κυρίῳ, occurring 46 times, expresses not a spatial idea, though the spatial 
conception is doubtless the basis of the phrase, but the spiritual, mystical 
relationship of the Christian to the heavenly Christ, which in turn 
entails various spiritual benefits and imposes various duties. It is to 
‘be noted that no instance of ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ occurs, a fact which argues for 
the hypothesis here put forward, namely, that in the prepositional 
phrase ἐν κυρίῳ the noun is not to be regarded as definite, although the 
revisers have invariably so translated it, but as qualitative, being used 
as a technical term, expressive of the mystical relationship of the believer 
to Christ or a cult designation for the circle of Christian fellowship. 
The qualitative character of the phrase is apparently reflected in the 
omission of the article before the noun. 

The evidence of the prepositional usage examined in this investigation 
tends to establish the principle that in Paul, at least, nouns in preposi- 
tional phrases are anarthrous when the prepositional phrase itself is 
qualitative. In such cases the noun itself may not strictly be regarded 
as qualitative though the phrase is. The qualitative character of the 
phrase is indicated by the omission of the article before the noun, since 
there is no article before the phrase whose omission would indicate this 
character. The statement sometimes made that nouns in prepositional 
phrases tend to be anarthrous is true to this extent, that nouns in prepo- 
sitional phrases are anarthrous when the phrase itself is qualitative. 
In general the omission of the article before nouns in prepositional 
phrases is clearly deliberate, with the intention of indicating their 
qualitative force. The noun after a preposition in no wise differs in its 
articular usage from a noun not used after a preposition (see, e.g., II Cor. 
11:23, 26), but is anarthrous when indefinite or qualitative, or when the 
phrase itself is qualitative. In the case of ἐν κυρίῳ these points are illus- 
trated. Κύριος is not indefinite and it is not itself qualitative. It is the 
whole phrase which is used qualitatively and therefore, though the refer- 
ence is perfectly definite, the noun in the phrase is made anarthrous as 
an indication of the qualitative character of the phrase. 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.—There are 
28 instances of κύριος used qualitatively in constructions other than 

‘prepositional phrases and in passages other than those quoted from the 
Old Testament. As typical instances may be cited Rom. 10:9: ἐὰν 
ὁμολογήσῃς ... . ὅτι ΚΎΡΙΟΣ IHSOYS . . . . σωθήσῃ; alsol Cor. 8:6: 


63 


θά HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


[ἀλλ᾽] ἡμῖν΄. . . . καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. In these passages it is 
the lordship of Jesus which is demanded and asserted, the term κύριος 
being strongly qualitative. The remaining instances of this character 
are Rom. 14:6 (¢er); I Cor. 4:4; 7:22, 25; 10:21 (bis); 12:3; 14:37; 
16:10; If Cor. 4:5; 12:1; Gal. 4:1; Eph. 4:5; 6:4; Phil. 2:11, 30; 
3:20; Col. 3:17; 4:1;. I Thess. 4:6, 15; 5:2; I Tim. 6:15; IL Tim. 
2:24. Ina few passages, of which Phil. 3:20 is an illustration, κύριος 
without the article occurs as a part of the title Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, 
in which the 3 terms constitute a single proper name, but the qualitative 
character of the appellative is at the same time preserved, as in the 
English “Captain John Smith,” “President Wilson,” etc. 

4. The Revised Version renderings of κύριος .---ΤῊ its renderings of 
anarthrous κύριος the Revised Version has usually employed the definite 
article, ἐν κυρίῳ, for example, being usually rendered “in the Lord,” 
which, however, was necessary inasmuch as English idiom does not 
permit the phrase “in Lord,” though it does allow “in Christ’ or “in 
God.” In those passages in which the acknowledgment that Jesus is 
κύριος is set forth as the essential Christian creed (Rom. 10:9; I Cor. 
12:3; Phil. 2:11; cf. Il Cor. 4:5) the Revised Version preserves the 
qualitative effect by an anarthrous rendering. The expression of the 
qualitative character of κύριος in prepositional phrases may well be 
practically impossible in English and the renderings of the Revised 
Version, therefore, may be as exact an equivalent as is feasible. In 
general, then, the treatment accorded the term in the Revised Version 
is insusceptible to dissenting criticism. 


Θεός 


1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage——As one of the 
most frequent appellatives, appearing 1,326 times in the whole New 
Testament and 520 times in Paul, this word is worthy of a detailed 
attention which its extraordinary frequency renders all the more 
difficult. Out of the 520 occurrences in Paul, 158 are clear instances 
of θεός without the article. Four others in the phrase τοῦ σωτῆρος 
ἡμῶν θεοῦ (I Tim. 2:3; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) are questionable. Of the 
158, 41 are in prepositional phrases. In nearly all instances where 
anarthrous θεός occurs it is in the oblique cases, occurring chiefly as a 
genitive modifier, but a few occurrences of the nominative must be 
admitted, viz., Rom. 8:33; 9:5; I Cor. 8:4; Phil. 2:13; I Thess. 2:5; 
I Tim. 3:16; Titus 1:16. 

64 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 65 


2. Usage in prepositional phrases ——The prepositional usage of θεός 
in the whole New Testament is as follows: 
With the article: 

ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke 1:26; Acts 2:22; 26:22; Rom. 15:15; Heb. 
6:7; Rev. 3:12; 12:6; 20:9; 21:2, 10). 

εἰς τὸν θεόν (John 14:1; Acts 6:11; 24:15). 

ἐκ tov θεοῦ (John 6:33; 7:17; 8:42, 47 [bis]; Rom. 2:29; I Cor. 
2:12; 11:12; Il Cor. 3:5; 5:18; I John 3:9 [bis], 10; 4:1, 2, 3, 4, 6 [dis], 
7 [bis]; 5:1, 4, 18 [bis], 19; IIL John 11; Rev. 11:11). 

ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ (Acts 10:4; I Cor. 4:5; I Thess. 3:9, 13). 

ἐν τῷ θεῷ (Rom. 5:11; Eph. 3:9; Col. 3:3; I Thess. 2:2; I John 
4:15, 16). 

ἔναντι τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke 1:8; Acts 8:21). 

ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke 1:6; 24:10). 

ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke 1:19; 12:6; 16:15; Acts 4:19; 7:46; 10:31, 
33; Rom. 14:22; I Cor. 1:29; II Cor. 4:2; 7:12; Gal. 1:20; I Tim. 
Sch ae Meese LL Tim: ἀεΥ ει δε ον, 3425029, ἀξ 92795113165 
12:10; 16:19). 

ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ (Luke 1:47; II Cor. 1:9). 

ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν (Matt. 27:43; Acts 15:19; 26:18, 20; I Tim. 5:5). 

κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (Matt. 26:63; I Cor. 15:15). 

παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (John 5:44; 6:46; 8:40; 16:27). 

mapa τῷ θεῷ (Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27; Rom. 2:11, 13; 
9:14; I Cor. 3:19; Gal. 3:11; Jas. 1:27). 

mpos Tov Oedv (John 1:1, 2; 13:3; 20:17; Acts 12:5; 24:16; 
Rom. 5:1; 10:1; 15:17, 30; I] Cor. 3:4; 13:7; Phil. 4:6; I Thess. 1:8, 
9; Heb. 2:17; 5:1; I John 3:21; Rev. 12:5; 13:6). 

ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (Matt. 22:31; Acts 10:41; 26:6; I Cor. 2:12; II Cor. 
1:4; Gal..3:17; I Thess. 1:4; 2:4; ‘Heb. 5:4, 10). 
Without the article: 

ἀπὸ θεοῦ (John 3:2; 13:3; 16:30; Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:3, 30; 6:19; 
oa-Gon) 2:33, Gal. τὺ ph, bios Oteas | Phil 2e2, 285 (Ὁ. r+ 2: 
II Thess. 1:2; I Tim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philem. 3; Heb. 
3:12; Jas. 1:13; IL Pet. 1:21). 

διὰ θεοῦ (Gal. 1:1; 4:7). 

eis θεόν (Luke 12:21; Rom. 8:7; I Pet. 1:21; 3:5, 21). 

ἐκ θεοῦ (John 1:13; Acts 5:39; I Cor. 7:7; IL Cor. 2:17; 5:1; 
Phil. 3:9). 

ἐν θεῷ (Rom. 2:17; I Thess. 1:1; II Thess. 1:1; Jude τ). 

ἐπὶ θεῷ (I Tim. 4:10; 6:17). 

65 


66 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


ἐπὶ θεόν (Acts 14:15; Heb. 6:1). 

κατὰ θεόν (Rom. 8:27; II Cor. 7:9, το, 11; Eph. 4:24; I Pet. 4:6; 5:2). 

κατέναντι θεοῦ (Rom. 4:17; IL Cor. 12:19). 

παρὰ θεοῦ (John 1:6; 9:33; Il Pet. 1:17; IL John 3). 

παρὰ θεῷ (Matt. 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 2:52; I Cor. 7:24; 
II Thess. 1:6; I Pet. 2:4, 20). 

πρὸς θεόν (Rom. 4:2). 

ὑπὸ θεοῦ (Rom. 13:1 [bis]; Gal. 4:9). 

The foregoing exhibit discloses the following facts: θεός with and 
without the article is used in prepositional phrases in the whole New 
Testament 199 times; in 67 instances it is anarthrous, in 132 articular. 
In Paul θεός occurs in prepositional phrases 86 times, 41 of which are 
anarthrous; in the Lucan writings 32 times, 4 of which are anarthrous; 
in the Johannine writings 55 times, 7 of which are anarthrous; in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews 7 times, 2 of which are anarthrous; in James 
twice, 1 of which is anarthrous; in I and 11 Peter 9g times, all of which 
are anarthrous. These data suggest that the New Testament usage 
of θεός in prepositional phrases is precisely that of nouns in other con- 
structions, viz., the article is dropped or retained according to the idea 
the writer desires to convey. If in his thought the term is restrictive 
or generic he employs the article; if in his thought the term is indefinite 
or qualitative he omits the article as a sign of that fact. If he employs 
the prepositional phrase as a whole qualitatively he omits the article 
before the noun in the phrase to show that the phrase is so intended, 
though the noun itself may not be strictly qualitative and though its 
reference may be perfectly definite. In no single instance of the 67 
cases of anarthrous θεός which the New Testament presents is the 
reference to any other than the Jewish and Christian deity, and in every 
case the absence of the article indicates either that the word θεός is used 
qualitatively or that the prepositional phrase as a whole is so used. 

3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases.—In general 
θεός without the article is qualitative (adjectival), approximating the 
adjective θεῖος or the abstract noun θειότης (I Tim. 3:16). A few 
instances of θεός used qualitatively may be discussed, e.g.: 

Rom. 1:17: δικαιοσύνη yap θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται. “For therein 
[in the gospel] is revealed a righteousness of God.”’ 

Rom. 1:18: ἀποκαλύπτεται yap ὀργὴ θεοῦ. “For the [margin “a”’] 
wrath of God is revealed.” 

The ‘‘righteousness”’ and “wrath” are conceived of here as dis- 
tinguished by the characteristics which God possesses. That which is 


66 


QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 67 


revealed is ‘divine righteousness,” “divine wrath.’”? While the anar- 
throus noun refers as definitely to God as if the article were present, the 
omission of the article indicates that it is not God as the possessor or 
imposer of righteousness or wrath which is foremost in the apostle’s 
thought, but the peculiar character which belongs to righteousness 
and wrath by virtue of the fact that they proceed from God. 

Rom. 8:9: εἴπερ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. “If so be that the spirit 

of God dwelleth in you.” 

Rom. 8:14: ὅσοι yap πνεύματι θεοῦ ἄγονται, οὗτοι viol θεοῦ εἰσίν. ‘But 
as many as are led by the spirit of God, these are sons of God.” 

In these instances πνεῦμα θεοῦ is to be distinguished from τὸ πνεῦμα 
τοῦ θεοῦ, not in respect to the definiteness of its reference but in respect 
to the emphasis laid upon the quality: both of πνεῦμα and θεοῦ. In 
neither of the cases cited above is it ‘‘the spirit of God,” thought of 
restrictively, but “divine spirit,’ thought of qualitatively; that is to 
say, one may conceive of a spiritual influence emanating from deity and 
denominate it ‘‘the spirit of God,” that is, the certain spirit which God 
possesses or of which he is the source. Thinking of this same spirit 
qualitatively we may call it “divine spirit,” that is to say, spirit whose 
characteristics are akin to or identical with those of deity itself. Asa 
matter of fact the definitive content of the two expressions may be 
precisely identical; in the one case, however, the writer uses the expres- 
sion restrictively, in the other qualitatively. 

I Cor. 1:1: Παῦλος κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ! διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ. 
**Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God.” 

I Cor. 1:18: Ὁ λόγος yap ὃ τοῦ σταυροῦ. . . . δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστίν. 
“For the word of the cross . . . . is the power of God.” 

Rom. 1:16: ov yap ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις yap θεοῦ ἐστίν. 
“For Iam not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God.” 

In all the above θεός is used qualitatively. In I Cor. 1:1 Paul’s 
apostleship is grounded upon divine intention. In this, as in all other 
occurrences of the Pauline phrase, διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ, the phrase is to be 
understood as equal to ‘‘by divine decree.” In I Cor. 1:18 and Rom. 
1:16 the gospel message is called “divine power.’”’? In Rom. 1:16 the 
gospel is not thought of (as the English translation would indicate) as 
that particular ‘‘power”’ belonging to God through which salvation is 
achieved, but simply as divine power working toward a definite end which 
is itself thought of qualitatively (σωτηρίαν not τὴν σωτηρίαν). It is, 
rendering the thought accurately, ‘‘divine power directed to the pro- 
duction of human salvation.” | 


67 


68 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


I Cor. 8:4: οἴδαμεν... .. ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς “We know.... 
that there is no God but one.” 

I Cor. 8:5: καὶ yap εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ 
γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, [ἀλλ᾽] ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὃ πατήρ. 
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on 
earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one 
God, the Father.” 

Gal. 4:8: ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς. ‘Ye were in bondage 
to them that by nature are no gods.” 

II Thess. 2:4: 6... . ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεόν. ‘He 
that exalteth himself against all that is called God.” 

In I Cor. 8:4, 6, where are found what are perhaps the clearest 
᾿ instances of the qualitative usage of θεός which the New Testament 
affords, the θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, who to Paul is the only being actually θεός, 
is contrasted with those whom he dismisses as merely θεοί so called. 

In Gal. 4:8 the apostle denies the right of the gods previously 
worshiped by the Galatians to the title θεός. The term is obviously 
strongly qualitative, the apostle’s thought being that these previously 
worshiped gods were lacking in the characteristics which are proper to 
deity. : 
In II Thess. 2:4 also θεός is clearly qualitative, the quality fore- 
most in the writer’s thought being the right of a θεός to reverential 
treatment. 

4. The Revised Version renderings of 9e0s.—The revisers’ fixed rule 
has been to translate θεός literally. Inasmuch as in English idiom the 
name of deity is regularly anarthrous this leaves the qualitative effect 
to be recognized only by reference to the Greek and to be expressed in 
English either by circumlocution or by mental or vocal emphasis. 

Though to give accurate renderings of θεός used qualitatively would 
have increased the difficulty of the translators’ work and have involved 
a greater degree of departure from the Authorized Version than the 
rules of the company contemplated, the English reader had the right 
to expect that such accurate renderings would be furnished. A trans- 
lator is under obligation to give his reader a version that shall be true 
both to the letter and the spirit of the original. The mere substitution 
of the English tetm ‘‘God” for the Greek θεός fails to acquaint the 
reader with the qualitative intention of the author’s usage. If to dis- 
cover this the reader must have recourse to the Greek the translation 
has obviously in so far failed to achieve the very purpose for which it 
was made. 


68 


IV. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY 


In the Greek text of the Pauline Epistles there occur 8,841 nouns 
and noun equivalents. Of these some 2,857 are used qualitatively. 
Of these 2,445 are so translated as to express in English the qualitative 
force of the original, while in 412 instances this has been obscured either 
by a failure to recognize the qualitative character of the noun in ques- 
tion or by a failure adequately to express that character in English. In 
some of these cases doubtless an ambiguous rendering of the qualitative 
force of the Greek is impossible. In others, a reader, familiar with the 
Greek, and observing the qualitative character of the noun, may in read- 
ing give the proper emphasis either mentally or vocally, but he cannot 
discover it from the English. The difference between English and Greek 
idiom doubtless renders a translation that is at the same time accurate 
and idiomatic, difficult and sometimes impossible. At the same time 
the English reader has a right to expect from a translator that he will 
give him whenever possible such a rendering of qualitative nouns as 
shall enable him to recognize their qualitative character without the 
necessity of reference to the original, and this the revisers have in the 
majority of cases, but by no means uniformly, done. 

The ascertainment of the relative correctness of the Revised Version 
in its renderings of qualitative nouns fulfils the secondary purpose of 
the investigation. The primary purpose was the discovery and listing 
of the nouns used qualitatively, together with such discussion as the 
limits of the dissertation allow, in the conviction that due attention to 
this element of New Testament lexicography will contribute to a more 
accurate interpretation of the New Testament. 

Incidentally the investigation has shown that nouns after prepositions 
have no peculiar usage respecting the use of the article by virtue of that 
fact. Anarthrous nouns in prepositional phrases, like such nouns in 
other constructions, are in general either indefinite or qualitative. The 
general proposition that nouns in prepositional phrases are either indefi- 
nite or qualitative requires modification only to the extent that nouns 
in prepositional phrases themselves qualitative or formulary tend to 
omit the article even if the noun is not itself, strictly speaking, qual- 
_itative. The evidence indicates that Pauline usage is not lax but 


69] 69 


βοῦς ὁ στὸ |< ΦΠΒΈΟΒΙΟΑΙ, AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


accurate, i.e., strictly in accordance with fixed principles. When the 
prepositional phrase is itself qualitative that qualitative character is 
shown by the omission of the article though the noun is not itself 
strictly qualitative. The failure to recognize this fact has led New 
Testament grammarians (e.g., Winer, Buttmann) into intricate and 
often erroneous observations. 


70 


re 
eae 
ros ἢ; 


Wis 
. oF. 

hale Se es ane 

eter gah aed 


51] 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


Return to desk from which borrowed. 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 


17Feb’51 WK 


LD 21-100m-11,'49 (B7146s16) 476 


